The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Pre-Budget Statement

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that he wishes to make a statement on issues affecting budgetary planning and preparation for the financial year 2002-03.

Mr Mark Durkan: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have already outlined the considerations that affect our approach to the preparation of Programme for Government proposals for 2002-03 in their letter to the Chairpersons of the Assembly Committees. The position report attached to their letter is the joint responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel. I shall complement what they say by covering the financial considerations in some more detail and emphasising some of the main points that will affect our public expenditure planning for the next year.
In the letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, especially the attached position report, and in this statement, the Executive seek to provide a basis for the Assembly’s consideration of the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2002-03. I particularly want to emphasise that our scrutiny needs to cover the full range of policy areas and actions in the public service. We must look at what is provided from the expenditure for which we are responsible. That means that our focus cannot be solely, or even mainly, on the bids that Departments have lodged for additional resources. We must look at the outputs that are being obtained to be sure that they are the best way to fulfil the Department’s objectives.
We need indicators of how Departments’ plans are progressing. We need a public service planning process, not an exercise in tallying up bids for more.
I emphasise that the development of priorities and actions in the Programme for Government must be the guide to our work on financial allocations. We need to avoid being drawn to focus mainly on financial pressures. We can ensure that we make a difference if we focus on our policy objectives and priorities. Those are set out in the Programme for Government section of the position report. I encourage all Committees and Members to take the opportunity to respond to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on that aspect of the work. The Programme for Government must guide the Budget, and shape our programmes and actions to emphasise the devolution difference.
Our approach this year to financial issues reflects the fact that this cycle is transitional between two Treasury spending reviews. Spending review 2000 gave us substantial increased expenditure as a consequence of the major increases announced by the Chancellor last July. Next year, the spending review 2002 will see the completion of the transition to resource accounting and budgeting with, for the first time, a need to take direct account of non-cash items in the spending plans. That will have profound and important consequences for us well above the level of technical financial analysis. In the longer term it could affect our spending power quite significantly.
At this stage of the cycle the total resources available to the Executive are fixed. Following last year’s spending review, and after the addition of £18million a year in the Chancellor’s March Budget, we have a departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for 2002-03 of £6,091million. That is an increase of 5·8% over the current year. The statement and the position report concentrate mainly on the expenditure in the DEL. However, the Budget will also include coverage of the main aspects of spending, which are treated as annually managed expenditure (AME).
We have not yet allocated the £18million that was added to our DEL in March 2001. That represents a small amount of unallocated resource. Therefore we are in a very different context by comparison with the situation during last year’s spending review. Last year’s addition to our provision for 2002-03 through the Barnett formula was £580 million. A large proportion of that was required to fund ongoing services. We also held some of it back to create the Executive programme funds, which are now progressing well. However, we did not keep a general contingency reserve.
As Members are aware, there is a pattern of changes in departmental estimating. Therefore, resources tend to become available for reallocation through our monitoring system. In that context, holding unallocated provision has not been necessary and may have been unhelpful.
I emphasise that there is fast growth in our spending trends at present. As a consequence of the decisions announced by the Chancellor last year, the growth rate of spending here is as rapid, in real terms, as at any time in recent years, and it is in considerable contrast to the pattern for most of the 1990s. In that respect the context is favourable. Although we dislike the fact that the Barnett formula does not give us as high a rate of growth as that available for comparable services in England, we have still gained substantial increases in real spending power.
This is not an appropriate time for substantial discussion or analysis of the Barnett formula. However, I shall comment briefly on that important subject. We can establish that Barnett causes us difficulties on major services such as health and education, where the growth of spending has been rapid and where our needs are significant.
I have said before that we must not underestimate the great difficulty of making progress on improving the Barnett formula. We have to face the fact that our spending is high. On some services, as a result of historic patterns and post priorities, it is very high compared with that in England, Scotland and Wales. There are also profound differences in the amounts that are raised locally through the rates and in the funding of water and sewerage services. From an English point of view, we are regarded as very well funded. While we have a case to make, especially over capital assets and the future treatment of the Barnett formula under resource accounting and budgeting, we have to face the fact that making that case on Barnett will be difficult. It certainly will not lead to rapid change, and for the foreseeable future we shall have to work within the totals fixed by the current approach.
Against that background, the position report sent to Members highlights issues to be addressed as we develop the Programme for Government and the Budget for 2002-03. The Executive are determined to make a difference through the services and policies for which we are responsible. We want to take the opportunities to break away from approaches that are no longer effective and relevant to the Northern Ireland’s best interests.
Spending pressures are, not surprisingly, intensified, despite the relatively favourable conditions presented by a rising trend in real spending terms, and there are significant backlogs of investment and great demands on some programmes. For that reason, we have emphasised in the position report the need to consider seriously and extensively the scope for reprioritising spending. We must focus more carefully and effectively on the Administration’s top priorities, the region’s most strategic requirements and the community’s most pressing needs.
Efficiency must be improved. Section 2 of the position report highlights a range of activities that could ensure better use of resources. We must decide how to deal with public-sector pay, which is a major driver of our spending, and explore how private-sector finance and expertise can contribute to the delivery of services.
Some spending issues highlighted by Departments must be thought about very carefully in preparation for the Executive’s Budget deliberations in September. It is important to focus on issues and not only on bids. The value of programmes should be considered rather than additional money simply being sought. We must ask "Why?" until we are satisfied or see what alternatives could be adopted. Resource accounting and budgeting should help to break old patterns and promote our priorities.
I emphasise again, however, that we work within a fixed total. There are many substantial demands on future spending power, and resources could be put to a host of useful and desirable purposes. The plain fact is that the majority of pressures will have to be absorbed through prioritisation in individual Departments’ budgets. The indicative figures set for 2002-03 in last year’s Budget can be changed at departmental level if the Executive can agree a new pattern. However, the process is about total public expenditure plans — how best to use the money we have to fulfil the Programme for Government — and not only the bids.
It is profoundly important that, as we go through the process, we remember that what is vital is what we can produce and deliver for the services for which we are responsible. All services, to one degree or another, benefit everyone, and that should influence our judgements.
All of us, whether we are Ministers, Committee Chairpersons or other Members, need to seek a combination of spending plans that can best fulfil the new institutions’ responsibilities. That means that we must look carefully at the contribution that each Department, North/South body and service can make to the wider objectives. The needs of big programmes can easily consume substantial resources. We also need to bear in mind the opportunities for benefit through other activities, while finding the balance between that consideration and the need to ensure that the resources are well spent.
We shall need to reflect that the indicative figures, as set out in December 2000’s Budget, assumed a level of revenue from the regional rate that depended on the increases that were planned at that time. Lower increases will constrain spending provision; indeed, the lower increases that were approved earlier this year for 2001-02 will have a knock-on effect. That point is drawn out in the position report, and it would be helpful if the Assembly and its Committees could address it carefully.
This is serious and difficult business. It is at the heart of the nature of our role and responsibilities as a devolved Administration. With spending rising substantially in last year’s cycle, it was possible to give relatively generous and substantial allocations to many spending programmes. The key point this year is that those allocations have continued in large measure across many programmes, as is shown in the indicative allocations for 2002-03 that were published in last year’s Budget.
This is a profound time for agriculture and rural development. The foot-and-mouth disease crisis has made it all the more important that the vision group’s work on the future of the industry addresses structural and strategic issues. Our per capita spending is high compared with that in England. That is to be expected, given the much greater significance of the agriculture sector to our economy. Much of that is driven by EU obligations on member states on matters such as animal health. We must think carefully about how the agriculture budget can best be deployed and about what changes may be necessary and appropriate.
There are new opportunities to make a difference and benefit the public through the creative application of ideas in the culture, arts and leisure sector. There are also significant spending pressures, not least from the issue of librarians’ pay.
The education sector is greatly significant for all concerned. The indicative figures do not show a sufficient uplift to cover some basic costs when compared to 2001-02. Therefore it is obvious that the indicative figures must be re-examined. Moreover, we must think carefully about the longer-term implications of the review of post- primary education. As the review body’s recommendations are not yet available, we cannot at present gauge the extent to which that issue will affect our spending plans for 2002-03. However, it must be borne in mind as we move forward.
We also want to ensure that the development of a common local management of schools (LMS) formula for all schools, which is important in the interests of equality and equity of treatment, is addressed. The education sector, like several others, faces major infrastructure issues. The Minister of Education has announced a balanced programme of conventional capital procurement and exploration of a public-private partnership approach for several important projects. Those and other issues identified in the position report must be considered seriously as we proceed.
The major developments in the enterprise, trade and investment sector that flow from strategic thinking about the future of the Northern Ireland economy are mainly for consideration in the context of the Executive programme funds. We are carefully considering the issues of infrastructure development for energy and telecommunications. We also want to look carefully at the effectiveness of spending on industrial support and industrial derating to ensure that spending on that sector is as effective as possible. That is one of our needs and effectiveness evaluations.
The main spending issues for my Department concern Government office accommodation and ensuring that the services that the Department of Finance and Personnel provides to Ministers, the Executive, the Assembly and the public are based on the best possible analysis and evidence. Alongside the Economic Policy Unit, it is important that we lead the way in improving the effectiveness of spending. Some investment in that is likely to yield worthwhile returns by improving the way spending is used. We also want to ensure that the procurement review produces results that are fully effective in pursuit of our economic and social objectives.
The 2000 Budget has provided significant resources for new student support measures to cater for the high demand for participation in post-16 and higher education. The needs and effectiveness evaluation, which is currently considering training and vocational education needs, will provide a better analysis of relative spending levels on those services.
The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has identified several spending issues. In the area of training and employment, the uptake for the preparation for work programmes and community projects has been greater than expected. In higher and further education, pressures are expected because of the need to meet higher-than-planned pay settlements for further education lecturers and non-industrial staff, and to adapt buildings to comply with disability legislation. Savings are expected, however, in the Springvale project.
The demands and pressures on the Health Service remain significant. Extensive work is being undertaken at present by nine different working groups to analyse the need for and effectiveness of health and social care spending here. We want to be able to make the best possible analytical comparisons with other countries and regions. Those will make a major contribution to the debate that we need to have on the application of the Barnett formula.
In the meantime, there are genuine pressures on the Health Service because of unmet need and rising demand, as well as the regular introduction of new and higher clinical standards. As is the case throughout the world, expectations of health services are rising significantly. The health sector is, by a considerable margin, our largest spending programme, and it is therefore all the more important that the resources available are used as effectively as possible.
Some hard choices have already been made, and we must be realistic about what efficiency gains are achievable. However, it is vital that we make use of that spending in the best possible way. I expect that the Assembly will sometimes set aside purely local considerations in order to ensure that resources are used in the best way from the point of view of the entire region. I stress that that includes equity of treatment for all parts of the region, and that calls for careful analysis of the relevant indicators so that those decisions can be taken objectively. We simply cannot afford not to do that.
The Department of the Environment received significant increased spending power in 2001-02 to make up for past underinvestment in the pursuit of environmental obligations under European Directives. That programme must continue, although again we need to ensure that available resources are used as effectively and carefully as possible. Demands have been made for grants for historic buildings, which have recently been the subject of moratoria. However, it will be as important to analyse needs and effectiveness in that sector as it is in any other as the Executive move towards public spending decisions.
The Department for Regional Development faces a range of difficult infrastructure issues. Last year, we took the first step in responding to the issues of rail safety that were highlighted in the A D Little Report following the report of the railways task force. The Executive programme fund allocations included some important new road schemes. We have confirmed the growth in spending on investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure. We have that spending rolled forward into future years so that means we cannot use that money for other spending programmes.
In England, the consumer pays directly for the investment programmes for the water and sewerage service providers. Therefore, funds cannot be read across through the Barnett formula for that sector.
We must consider what steps might be required in public transport beyond the rail safety expenditure that has already been approved. The scale of the bids received from the Department for Regional Development is described as very high; it is beyond what can be afforded through available resources for 2002-03. However, it is important that we think about those profound issues so that they can be addressed in the long term.
The Department for Social Development has registered some important issues about fuel poverty and housing that must be considered carefully. The Executive are analysing the need for and effectiveness of current spending in five areas, while giving due regard to considerations of New TSN and equality of opportunity. Housing is one of those areas.
Another key area for the Department for Social Development is the development of a new regeneration strategy for Belfast. The Department is consulting with relevant organisations and groups in the public, community, voluntary and private sectors in that regard. Among the Department’s other priorities is the welfare modernisation programme, for which significant provision was made in the last year’s Budget. The programme will secure major improvements to the social security system with the key aim of providing work for those who can work, and support for those who cannot.
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has important responsibilities for the modernisation programme of the Executive’s Departments as a whole, and for that of a range of central co-ordination and secretariat functions that are vital to the operation of the new institutions. Our spending plans must reflect recognition of that, as we cannot advance the development of the agreement and the servicing of the devolved Administration without also willing the means in OFMDFM and other Departments.
Those are only a few of the issues that we must address in the forthcoming Budget round. The situation is covered much more fully in the position report. Some of the work that we shall carry out from now until December will be relevant, not just to 2002-03 but to the years ahead.
From early next year, we shall be engaged in a full-scale spending review with the Treasury, and we shall try to resolve how the Barnett formula will be applied to resource accounting and budgeting. There has been concern about the timetable for that process. In my statement of 29 May, I emphasised that there is scope for considerable discussion despite inevitable constraints on the timetables. We have asked for preliminary views to be brought to us quickly, but that is because the Assembly has asked for the Budget to be presented earlier than it was last year. We could provide longer for the initial stage of comment if the Assembly could wait until later in the autumn to have the Executive’s Budget proposals. However, that would not be the best way to proceed.
I accept that there is room for more improvement by way of pre-Budget input from Committees, but I would also like to point out that Committees are free to query their Department’s existing spending priorities or propose new ones. Neither my Department nor I wish to inhibit our Committees’ scrutiny of their respective Department’s spending, or the exercise of their policy development role.
We must also bear in mind the Executive’s key responsibilities and the need to ensure that the Programme for Government drives the Budget as it should. Together with all Departments and Committees, and in time for next year’s cycle, we need to establish arrangements that ensure full dialogue on the spending plans for all programmes and how they relate to the Programme for Government. Committees can and should be able to influence the approach that their Department is taking to the Programme for Government and Budget work.
I hope that all Committees and Members will now be able to play an important role during this cycle and as the process progresses. This is a preparatory stage, but the more important stage will begin after the Executive make specific proposals for the 2002-03 Budget in September. I hope that, as a result of the position report, and the deliberations of the weeks and months to come, everyone concerned will be well prepared by that stage and there can be constructive and positive engagement.

Mr James Leslie: I thank the Minister for his detailed statement, which contained some interesting observations. I note, in particular, his comments on public sector pay, which is a major driver of our spending. Will he also be examining the overall size of the public sector — a matter about which I have tackled him before — to check whether there is capacity to reduce the overall size of this bill?
He laid considerable emphasis on the importance of finding other means of paying the bills. In particular, the Minister made it clear that there are insufficient existing resources to address the infrastructure deficit faced by the Department for Regional Development. Has he considered pursuing other means of raising revenue, such as tolling, congestion charging or water rates, to address the deficit in a timely manner? Does he agree that the tough decision-making and the potential for short-term unpopularity that such responsibility entails are not characteristics normally associated with the party responsible for that Department?

Mr Mark Durkan: The scale and scope of the public sector are relevant considerations in the overall review of public administration. They are also relevant to our financial planning, because we want to ensure that we are not spending money on Government activities that do not benefit our citizens. We are therefore happy to carry out the work constructively and based on policy.
We want to ensure that the Assembly and the public have a realistic understanding of the resources that we have available to fund services. Under the Barnett formula we get no money for water and sewerage, because there is no public expenditure on such infrastructure across the water. Therefore we can not be given a Barnett consequential. We must find the public expenditure needed to fund water and sewerage, and the Executive recognise that there has been historic underinvestment that needs to be remedied.
We must find the resources needed to fund this infrastructure out of funds that are essentially intended to provide other services. Our only means of supplementing the Barnett formula moneys is through the rates. The Assembly has already indicated that there are sensitivities about seeking increases in rate revenue to support our expenditure in several areas. In the context of the rating review, we have to look at alternatives while recasting the rating policy itself. We must find other ways to raise funds to support much-needed investment in services. It will be for the Department responsible for each service, rather than the Minister of Finance and Personnel, to explore the possibility of imposing charges or taxes to fund that provision.
Mr Leslie is correct to acknowledge that we must be realistic and recognise that those issues must be dealt with.
If we are not prepared to ask ourselves those questions, we shall find in any attempt to review the Barnett formula that the Treasury will be asking us those questions, perhaps in more uncomfortable terms.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I add to Mr Leslie’s welcome of the Minister’s statement. It is important that the Budget flows from the Programme for Government. Can the Minister give details as to when the needs and effectiveness reviews will be complete? If they are not ready in time for the work on this year’s Budget, will Ministers be encouraged to rigorously interrogate their Departments to ensure that wasteful bureaucracy is removed, and that the structures and quangos developed under direct rule are tested to see whether they meet the needs of Northern Ireland?

Mr Mark Durkan: The needs and effectiveness reviews to which Patricia Lewsley referred are an important tool to help to identify all our requirements and to ascertain the degree to which we are using our resources to best effect. The initial five reviews are under way, and we expect to see some preliminary results on relative needs soon. The work on effectiveness will necessarily take longer, but I hope that useable results will emerge to inform the Budget exercise.
The Executive expect each Department to conduct its business with the greatest possible efficiency, and the review of public administration to which we are committed will look thoroughly at opportunities for improving the delivery of public services. I emphasise that each Minister should be a value-for-money Minister. I also remind Committees, in the context of the position reports going to the Committees, that each Committee should be a value-for-money Committee. Patricia Lewsley mentioned the role of Ministers; Committees should also interrogate Departments on their spending.

Mr Gardiner Kane: Will the Minister take on board concerns and allocate significant additional funding to the Health Service, the morale and staffing levels of which seem to be at an all-time low? Moreover, will finance be made available to revitalise the rural economy following the foot-and-mouth disease crisis?

Mr Mark Durkan: I cannot pre-empt the decisions that the Executive will take on the Budget. The fact that we are making a pre-Budget statement and making available the position report, which covers the pressures facing all Departments, means that the Assembly and its Committees have a chance to address issues such as those that Gardiner Kane has mentioned.
I accept, as I said in my statement, that there are serious pressures on the Health Service. However, there have also been significant increases in expenditure. The Executive made more money available for Health Service expenditure from the additional resources that we got from the Chancellor’s spending review than would have been the Barnett consequential for health. We therefore do recognise the priority attaching to the Health Service. We also recognise that even those significant allocations that we could make will not always enable us to keep pace with all the pressures that arise. There are technological costs and implications for services, some structural changes and the service pressures through patient and client demand.
On the rural economy, the Executive are committed to rural proofing right across their programme. In relation to support for the rural economy, we should be thinking of more than just one or two particular budget lines. We should be trying to make sure that all Departments bend and lend their programmes to ensure that the rural community is supported in every possible way. It is not a matter of getting a single turn out of a single budget.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. The Minister reiterated that this is not the time to further analyse the entire Barnett formula.
I want to make the point again that I would be more content if I were assured of the Executive’s commitment to securing the necessary changes to the Barnett formula to take into account the gross underfunding that a large number of our services have endured for many years.
Secondly, the Minister will be aware that it is important to build on the relationships between himself, the Department and the Committee. The Minister will know that Members have varying degrees of satisfaction, and perhaps even dissatisfaction, with the degree of timely consultation with, and scrutiny by, the Finance and Personnel Committee of financial matters in the Assembly.
Finally, the Minister has dealt with the need for such proper scrutiny in his speech. However, Departments must retain responsibility but that does not absolve the Committees. That is right, and I thank the Minister for pointing that out. There is a significant onus on the Department to ensure that there is proper sequencing of the deliveries throughout the financial year. The Department can and should lead the way. As I said, that does not remove responsibility from the Committees to do their job of scrutinising or coming forward with their own proposals, but the Minister and his Department are central to the Executive’s financial operation.

Mr Mark Durkan: I want to reply to several of Mr Maskey’s points. I welcome his continued interest in the need for us to try to challenge and change the Barnett formula. We must raise issues that relate to the Barnett formula, not only because of the implications that the ongoing taper on our expenditure increases have for some of our key service programmes, but because of the implications of resource accounting and budgeting.
We must also deal with issues to do with our capital assets in the public sector such as water, sewerage and roads. Across the water, local authorities usually deal with those issues, so they do not count, therefore, in the departmental expenditure limit (DEL), unlike here. That not only concerns the amounts made available to us through the Barnett formula, but what capital charges are counted in the ambit of the DEL. The Executive are committed to trying to pursue those questions, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are especially committed to playing a strong striker role as they represent the Administration and the region.
I acknowledge that there have been frustrations and criticisms from members of the Finance and Personnel Committee and others about the flow, cycle and availability of information at different times. With this exercise, the statement that I made on 29 May that set out an approach to timetable, the pre-Budget statement now, and the position reports sent by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to all Committee Chairpersons, we are trying to ensure that all Committees have an early input. I remind Members that the position reports that Committee Chairpersons received yesterday were received by Ministers only in the middle of last week. There has been no Executive consideration as such of those position reports, and no bids have been weeded or screened out. From the point of view of the Executive planning process, the Committees and their Chairpersons were furnished with information almost as soon as Executive members.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is good to talk about those more strategic aspects of spending plans as early in the financial cycle as possible.
Will the Minister elaborate on two points that I found to be tantalising disclosures? The first concerned the needs and effectiveness evaluation relating to training and vocational education. This is the first occasion on which my Committee has been aware of that. I would be grateful for any further information, in particular on who will conduct that evaluation. External evaluation can achieve a more objective proofing of the standards of service delivery.
Secondly, can the Minister elaborate on
"the need to meet higher-than-planned pay settlements for further education lecturers"?
That could be good news for further education lecturers, who feel that their pay levels have decreased in comparison with pay levels for secondary teachers. What sort of pay settlement is envisaged for those staff?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am surprised that the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment was not aware of the needs and effectiveness evaluations, and I cannot understand how that has happened.
The Executive instituted an exercise that involved five needs and effectiveness evaluations, as mentioned in my statement, and that is one of them. It has been mentioned in various communications and also in the Chamber. In future, we must ensure that any such decisions are communicated to those people who have a direct interest.
The needs and effectiveness evaluations are being done for our own purposes. This is a significant programme with a large amount of expenditure involved. It is an important area as far as the Executive’s priorities in the Programme for Government are concerned. We are also conscious that we might want to challenge — and be challenged — on some of those issues on any approach we make in relation to the Barnett formula. Like the other needs and effectiveness evaluations, it is there to assist the Executive and the region in ensuring that we have optimum public spending patterns and levels.
I want to be careful about singling out any one group on the subject of pay pressures. As well as the reference to further education lecturers, elsewhere in the statement I referred to public sector pay’s being a significant driver of our spending. I do not want to speak out of turn and imply that any one group of staff in any service is a problem, or that its pay award may lead to pressures. I hope that all Committees will note that we face significant pressures on public sector pay; the uplifts on public sector pay consume considerable amounts of our available additional resources. That means that people who need increases in services are often not getting as much as they would like.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I welcome the Minister’s statement and recognise that his area of work is complex and important. The Assembly understands that our needs are many and varied, and that the resources received from the Treasury are insufficient to meet them. Consequently, can the Minister advise the Assembly what action he has initiated to identify alternative sources of funding to augment the Barnett-based allocations, and what actions will his fellow Ministers take to help to get a greater return from the resources that we have?

Mr Mark Durkan: I agree with the Member that public finances can be complex, but we must never lose focus on the essentials, which are to obtain an appropriate share of the resources available and to use them effectively to meet our needs.
The Executive have made no secret of the fact that we believe that a better needs-based mechanism to replace the Barnett formula is required. We are pursuing that goal, as I have already indicated.
The Executive are also determined to make maximum use of the existing funding opportunities. We have set up several needs and effectiveness studies in key areas in order to better inform policy-making. We have also announced a high-powered working group that will look at the scope for using public-private partnerships to help deliver public services. My Executive Colleagues have pledged their full support for those initiatives.

Mr Edwin Poots: I note the Minister’s comments that the Minister of Education has announced a balanced programme of conventional capital procurement and exploration of public-private partnerships. I assume that Mr Durkan’s view of a balanced programme relates to public-private partnerships as opposed to spending from the public purse, and that it does not include the two-to-one ratio of spending that the Minister of Education announced for maintained and controlled schools, which discriminated against the controlled sector.
There was some confusion last year as to whether Northern Ireland would benefit from the "Prescott package". Can the Minister confirm that we are entitled to our element under the Barnett formula, given the case of the London Underground and other circumstances that prevailed in the UK? If that will be the case, can the Minister assure us that the money will stay in the public transport sector?

Mr Mark Durkan: I addressed Mr Poots’s point about the balanced programme for education yesterday. The spending on schools’ capital is properly needs-based, whether it is announced by the Minister of Education with respect to his Department’s Budget allocation or by me on behalf of the Executive programme funds. Information on the working lists of projects awaiting investment has been furnished to Members who wished to see it. Decisions were properly needs-based.
If people are saying that we should only give equal amounts to school sectors regardless of the needs of particular schools, that could be discriminatory. We would be saying that we could not fund certain schools because they were in a particular sector, but that we would fund schools in another sector that had less need, or whose building project was less ready for funding.
I want to assure the House that there is no discrimination in those areas of spending. There are means available for Members to pursue issues for which they believe that equality implications arise. Members are not using those means but are continually reciting this criticism or allegation every time I make a statement on spending.
We received a Barnett share from the money announced in the "Prescott package". Large additions were made to road and rail in 2001-02 in the past year and in the Executive programme fund allocations. Although the money that we get through the Barnett formula derives from expenditure decisions across a range of programmes in England, we, as a devolved region, have discretion on how we should spend that money.

Mr George Savage: I too welcome the Minister’s comments. He mentioned that the agriculture sector is of much greater significance to our country than it is in England and that we need to think very carefully about how our Budget can best be deployed.
Does the Minister agree that following the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, which came hard on the heels of the BSE crisis and, effectively, a decade of collapse in agriculture, that the time is right to restructure the agriculture sector? Everybody says that that needs to be done, and I moved a motion to that effect last December. Does the Minister agree that we should take this opportunity to try to restructure the agriculture sector, including fishing?
We have come through a crisis through which no other industry has come. My Colleague mentioned the pay rises to lecturers in further education colleges. We are not talking about a pay rise; we are talking about a survival package. Something has to be done . I hope that the Minister will take that on board. Those of us on the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee pride ourselves on the fact that agriculture is, as he said earlier, a value-for-money sector.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: The Member is making a speech.

Mr George Savage: I hope that I work in the department of value for money, but this has to work two ways, and we need help.
I shall ask my question and shall come to my point. I do not need any help. — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Savage has asked a number of questions and made some salient points about the pressures and difficulties facing agriculture — and not just the pressures from the immediate fallout and impact of foot-and-mouth disease, but some of the longer-term structural challenges.
This is an area in which I want to be careful. After all, we are at preparatory stage for the Budget, and I look forward, on the basis of Mr Savage’s remarks, to the views and insights that will come from the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on those matters. The Committee will help the Executive think through how best to support the sort of changes and developments that are needed for the long-term good of agriculture.
I want to be careful about taking up his invitation to make a specific call for restructuring, wholesale restructuring or whatever. Many people in agriculture might make a benign response to a call from him phrased in those terms, but they might not make such a benign response to a similar call from the Minister of Finance and Personnel. People tend to look negatively at any strategic analysis that we offer as a threat rather than as an encouragement.
I have shared this with you before, Mr Speaker: as Minister of Finance and Personnel, I do not suffer from depression, but I am a carrier, so I will be more than happy, as will the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and Executive Colleagues, to reflect on the sort of thinking that Mr Savage is sharing with us on behalf of the Committee.

Mr P J Bradley: I too welcome the Minister’s statement and endorse the other comments made. Can the Minister confirm that more professional procurement can play an important role in generating value for money and helping to achieve the wider social and economic goals that will meet society’s needs?

Mr Mark Durkan: The procurement review implementation team, which was established in February 2001, is reviewing procurement policy and procedures with very much the purpose that Mr Bradley has referred to in mind. The findings of the initial review, which was conducted before devolution, indicated that, if we were to set similar targets to those set for Departments in Great Britain, we could achieve procurement savings of £30 million.
Such significant savings for a devolved Administration to administer and direct towards some of our spending priorities would be useful. The more efficient our procurement procedures are, the more value for money can be achieved, and, in turn, the more money can be allocated to other public service needs.
The review team has also been asked to identify the scope for using procurement to achieve local social and economic objectives. That is a fairly complex legal area, and I look forward to receiving the report from the review team.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I thank the Minister for his — [Interruption]
I suppose that one has to take as much as one gives. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the moneys set aside for the redevelopment of Belfast city. It is important that that should happen. However, does the Minister agree that there are several important provincial towns that also need investment? Some of those towns have been allowed to fall into a terrible state because of sectarian trouble, population movement or out-of-town shopping. Will the Minister assure the House that some consideration will be given to that?

Mr Mark Durkan: Members have an exercise that allows them the opportunity in the Chamber — and particularly in the Committees — to raise and explore issues such as that which Roger Hutchinson mentioned. Today we are allowing for pre-Budget reflection and input from the Assembly and Committees.
The position report is reflecting issues concerning the Departments, issues that they have brought to the attention of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Department of Finance and Personnel relating to Programme for Government planning and Budget planning.
The references made to Belfast in the context of the Department for Social Development budget are clear. If Members wish to make further representations to the Department for Social Development to apply similar attention in other towns, they are free to do so. It is not for me in any context — and certainly not in this preliminary pre-Budget context — to give definitive commitments of the nature that Mr Hutchinson has sought.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I agree with much of the Minister’s statement. However, my problem with previous statements was that they were vague in stating what might be spent in the next round in areas that we consider priorities, and with how we might approach that.
In Britain, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has been removed. Will that impact upon the Assembly’s views on how to prioritise spending for agriculture in our Budget? Will this perceived movement away from agriculture by the British Government impact on how the Executive might view priority spending for agriculture in the next round?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive are alert to the importance of the agriculture sector in our economy and its importance to the whole region. The implications of the changes in departmental designations in Whitehall will not make any material difference to how we set our priorities.
It is for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to determine what Departments we have and to designate their structures and titles. The move to a dedicated Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is supported by the Assembly. It is a Department that is working hard to serve the needs of its sector and one that is co-operating with the Committee.
The Executive will be as supportive and as responsive as possible to the needs and services that are represented in the work of all Departments, including the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Changes in departmental designations will not materially affect the priority that we want to see accorded to agriculture, and the type of support and intervention that we want to undertake in agriculture.
It might make some difference at representational level. It might affect how well our needs are reflected at UK level when it comes to some EU considerations. There may be some change at representational level and in the European policy-influencing area, but not in our own priorities.

Mr Fred Cobain: I want to raise a number of issues on behalf of the Social Development Committee. First, it is important to target social need. Housing is central to that. This year we shall spend less on housing than we did last year. Next year we shall spend less again. The Housing Executive has targeted north Belfast, citing it as having the worst housing conditions in western Europe and highlighting the need for £157 million over the next eight years to tackle that. To date, the Executive have allocated £5million, and if we continue at that rate, it will take 20 or 30 years to address that issue in north Belfast.
Secondly, there is the matter of rents. Last year’s budget was based on an increase of twice the rate of inflation for rents. I benchmark that against targeting social need (TSN). People who live in the poorest sections of society, such as Housing Executive tenants on housing benefits, had their bathroom and kitchen replacement schemes cancelled. That is another first for targeting social need.
Fuel poverty issues that were agreed by the Executive affect a small portion of society. People who are over 60 and have a small income-related pension are not entitled to the fuel poverty entitlements. Similarly, most people who are under 60 and who have severe physical disabilities and those who are under 60 and have a small family are not entitled to the fuel poverty entitlements.
Roger Hutchinson raised an issue about the regeneration of towns and cities. We are spending less this year than we did last year, and according to the Budget we shall spend less next year than we did this year.
I ask the Minister to take on board the concerns of the Social Development Committee. Unless the Executive take those issues on board and allocates sufficient funds that will tackle some of those needs, we are in for a lively Budget debate in November.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank Mr Cobain for his warning and the points that he made. Our spending on housing was not reduced last year. We reversed a pattern and saw an increase in housing expenditure last year. The Executive, when budgeting for services for which charges are made, such as rents, will allocate moneys based on certain assumptions.
Those are the working assumptions on which the Executive allocates the money. I indicated at the draft Budget stage and at other points of consideration that, in relation to the Housing Executive budget, the Executive were working on the assumption of rent increases of GDP plus 2%. The Housing Executive was funded on that basis. However, it fell to the Minister and the Department to decide whether that would be the case in practice. The option to go for a lower rate increase of GDP plus 0·5% was taken, and that in turn meant that there would be less rental income and less money to spend on the housing programme. That was not the Executive’s choice; it was the choice of the Department and the Minister concerned, and was made within their budget. The Committee for Social Development is free to engage the Minister on that issue in relation to further Budget planning.
Members referred to what was or was not in the statement, and I ask them to look at the overall position report. Mr Cobain stressed that the Executive will have to take account of the needs that he referred to under the responsibilities of the Department for Social Development. I hope that all Committees will take account of the wider realities and pressures that the Executive face and the service issues that the Budget must meet. We cannot go on automatically increasing every single Budget line year on year. If we are serious about making a difference and about reprioritisation as a devolved Assembly, we must spend less on some Budget lines, either because success has been registered in meeting particular needs and overcoming problems or because there are other new needs that take greater priority. We cannot sustain increases in every single Budget line — we do not have the additional money to do that. We hope that all Committees will be realistic about that matter, as well as being assertive in the context of the services that they want to see bettered and protected.

Mr Alban Maginness: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It has been both interesting and provocative. I note that he said that
"The scale of the bids received from the Department for Regional Development is described as very high; it is beyond what can be afforded through available resources for 2002-03."
As Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development I accept that. However, I re-emphasise that there has been a historic underfunding of the roads infrastructure, which has led to a serious deterioration in the standard of roads throughout Northern Ireland. There has also been a historic underfunding of water and sewerage, and underinvestment in public transport, and that has led to a serious situation. All three areas must be addressed, and, unfortunately, they must be addressed simultaneously. The high bids are not inflated artificially but reflect the growing need in our society for better roads, better water and better public transportation.
The Minister has rightly stated that there are profound questions on future funding for the Department for Regional Development. I ask the Minister to consider whether there are alternative sources of funding that he or his Department can envisage in the near future that would effectively address the needs mentioned and of which he is aware.

Mr Speaker: I ask all Members and the Minister to be as concise as possible. I have a substantial list of Members who wish to ask questions, but there are only 15 minutes left for them to do so.

Mr Mark Durkan: I assure Mr Maginness that my reference to the scale of bids from the Department for Regional Development was not meant to imply that there were inflated bids. I reflected on the historical underfunding that exists there. We have consultations at Committee and Executive level, and it is important to hear the results of deliberations such as those from the Committee for Regional Development on issues that are, as Mr Maginness acknowledges, profound.
If there has been historical underfunding, there is also current underfunding in the Northern Ireland budget at large, and we have to work with that reality. We need to look at issues that must be addressed to get more resources for certain services. That comes back to the issue about charges that was raised by Mr Leslie, in particular, for services for which we get no money from the Barnett formula. We get no money for water and sewerage from the Barnett formula, and we must fund those services out of whatever resources we have. We need to think about the degrees of priority that we accord to the needs that are registered. We shall try to take account of particular priorities and pressures that exist across all Departments, and we shall take the Committees’ views into account. We ask the Committees to look not only at what needs more money, but at how to get more money.
My Department does not have a "magic bullet". Some people think that there are easy options, that it is just a matter of establishing a new super bond. Unfortunately, that would not help us under existing Treasury rules. We are governed by a departmental expenditure limit. As my officials point out, the departmental expenditure limit does exactly what it says: it limits the amount of money that Departments have to spend. Therefore, if we were to get resources by other means, we would still come up against that spending limit. That is one of the reasons for having a high-powered working group to look at ways of supplementing our public spending through other means, including private funding.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I thank the Minister for his pre-Budget statement and for yesterday’s draft. An unfortunate phrase has entered our political vocabulary — "rural proofing". I do not regard the rural community as something to be equated to vandal proofing, child proofing or theft proofing. The rural community is an important part of society. However, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development introduced that phrase. The Programme for Government talks about social inclusion and New TSN, but there is no mention of rural proofing.
As a result of the crisis in the rural community, we expect some form of positive discrimination so that we can get an equality of results. I am grateful that the Minister has allocated £10 million to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for a vision for the future of agriculture. However, nowhere in today’s statement or yesterday’s draft was there any indication of how rural proofing would be carried out, whose responsibility it is, which Department is in charge or how it will be financed. How will rural proofing be carried out to support the rural community?

Mr Mark Durkan: I hope that Members do not expect the concept of rural proofing to be translated into a Budget line of that name. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has championed and emphasised the concept. Although that Department will, obviously, have a particular responsibility for, and interest in, ensuring that the needs of the rural community are properly met, a similar responsibility will fall to all Departments that provide services across the region, including those services to people in rural communities. The issue can also be usefully taken up through the channels available to the various departmental Committees, which can question how well rural proofing is done by the corresponding Departments as far as their particular spending programmes are concerned.
In a draft or revised Budget, I present the spending decisions made, in broad terms, at Executive level. It is then the responsibility of individual Departments and Ministers to translate those into specific spending decisions that support services across the region. I reiterate that Committees are free to explore and interrogate those detailed spending issues. Questions on those issues should not be asked in a setting such as this, but should be taken up with the various Departments.

Mr Sean Neeson: In the past, the "economy budget" has been an easy option for extracting funding at a time of crisis. Can the Minister assure me that the Budget will not be tampered with, bearing in mind that major projects, such as the Northern Ireland science park, have not been outlined as part of the Budget itself?
The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is currently investigating energy provision in Northern Ireland. Will the necessary funding, especially for the expansion of the natural gas pipeline, be made available from the Executive programme funds?

Mr Mark Durkan: I assure Mr Neeson that we are not identifying any departmental budget as an easy option. I hope that Members recognise that if we do not allow ourselves to reprioritise, or to refuse to increase one Budget line so as to make more money available for significant increases elsewhere, we shall only continue the patterns set under direct rule. Either we want to make a difference or we do not.
The Executive will decide the broad Budget allocations in respect of different programmes. In the Programme for Government, the Executive have defined a competitive economic situation as a high priority. Infrastructural commitments are of similar importance. We have made clear that money could be available from the Executive programme fund for infrastructure for projects like the gas pipeline. That obviously depends on the value and economic strength of the given proposals. It would be wrong to promise more than that or to pre-empt negotiations or Executive decisions about either the Executive programme funds or to the wider Budget.

Mr John Dallat: As an eternal optimist, I welcome the Minister’s statement. If I were in the Gallery, would I be right to assume that the statement triggers a process that, if properly used, will enable us to break away from the pattern of direct rule expenditure?
Am I correct to assume that we can now prioritise expenditure against our agreed Programme for Government, thereby meeting people’s needs in a more appropriate way?

Mr Mark Durkan: I would like to think that the eternal optimist MrDallat would be correct in making that assumption if he were sitting in the Gallery. We have challenges before us. We must match the limited public expenditure available to us to the right priorities, and they must be our priorities. We have taken some strides in that direction through the creation of the Programme for Government, the agreed Budget and the establishment of the Executive programme funds. We want to continue to break away from direct rule patterns of expenditure. We shall be able to do that only if we do not insist, as an Assembly or as an Executive, on being handcuffed to previous Budget patterns and commitments. We need to be ready to reprioritise. We can reprioritise as effectively as our decisiveness will allow.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is very fitting that we have a devolved Government in NorthernIreland. Today we are looking to the future of Northern Ireland, and especially to next year’s Budget. Since the Belfast Agreement in May 1998, we have been looking forward to a brighter future for all the people of NorthernIreland. We all hoped for a time when we could make decisions in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland. However, today the future of Northern Ireland is still in the hands of Sinn Féin and the IRA. For the past 30years, the country has been put in debt following the destruction of people and property.

Mr Speaker: Order. This is an opportunity for the Member to ask questions on the pre-Budget statement, not on the Budget or anything else.

Mr Billy Armstrong: The agriculture industry is a shambles, and most of the budget is spent on administration. Is the budget too small, or is the Department not efficient enough? That question must be addressed by the Executive. Agriculture must be restructured so that farmers in NorthernIreland can have a fair day’s pay for producing a superior product. Farmers are living on the knife-edge of bankruptcy. We cannot sell the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Mr Mark Durkan: I note MrArmstrong’s point, but I shall not borrow the phrase that he used, because the wrong connotation would be put on it. The Member asked whether the budget for agriculture is inadequate, or whether the Department, or the plans that are in place, are efficient enough. It may be either or both. However, this exercise, with the pre-Budget reflections and the consideration when it comes to the draft Budget, allows departmental Committees to explore those issues with their Departments and Ministers. Our total Budget is not adequate to meet all our needs and service demands. We also must ask whether our existing spending plans and patterns are as efficient or as effective as they could be.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Minister’s statement. I particularly welcome its tone and tenor regarding the introduction of resource accounting and development priorities in the Programme for Government. How will that impact on our future spending powers? Does the Minister envisage discussion with the Treasury leading to an improvement of the Barnett allocation to Northern Ireland, given the limiting factors that we currently have?

Mr Mark Durkan: I have already touched on some of the points that MrByrne raises. The Executive are trying to address with the Treasury the difficulties that the Barnett formula gives us. I have said that it is not just the amount, which is the usual issue with which everyone readily identifies, but some of the implications of resource accounting and budgeting. That is a complex issue, but we must note that the move to resource accounting does not, in itself, have implications for our spending power. However, a fundamental principle of resource accounting is that budgets have to bear a cost in respect of assets held. That will have implications, because, as I have already said, we have a much larger asset base than England.
The Executive — while trying to address those allocation and ambit issues of the Barnett formula with the Treasury — are establishing a high-powered working group to look at other means of supplementing and supporting our public expenditure needs.
12.00

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I welcome the statement. Will the Minister confirm that the process initiated today offers a real opportunity for the Assembly and the Committees to play a full part in ensuring that the broad needs of our society are met and that we are not just exploring and raising issues? Will our views be taken seriously?

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that the time for questions is up. The Member will not be able to complete his question or, I regret, receive an answer from the Minister, except perhaps in writing if the Minister feels able to do so.
I regret the fact that some Members who wished to ask the Minister questions were not able to do so in the maximum time available under Standing Orders. Several Members asked questions that were almost identical to some that had already been asked. In some cases, Members had an excuse as they were not in the Chamber when the questions were asked. However, some Members were in the Chamber when questions were asked, and they asked exactly the same questions again, which is perhaps less excusable. I am sure that the Environment Committee will be happy about the recycling nature of this, but for the rest of the Assembly it is not particularly the best way to use the very limited time available for such a broad issue.

Budget (No. 2) Bill: First Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill [NIA17/00] to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of certain sums for the service of the year ending 31 March 2002; to appropriate those sums for specified purposes; to authorise the Department of Finance and Personnel to borrow on the credit of the appropriated sums; to authorise the use for the public service of certain resources (including accruing resources) for the year ending 31 March 2002; and to repeal certain spent enactments.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Mr Speaker: The Bill will be put on a list of future pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Family Law Bill: Final Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move
That the Family Law Bill (NIA 4/00) do now pass.
Taking account of your earlier observations, Mr Speaker, I shall not repeat the comments that I made at Second Stage.
This is a short but significant reforming Bill that will best serve the interests of children, their unmarried fathers and step-parents. Generally, it will support strong, healthy family relationships. Equally, the parentage of a child will be more easily established when that is in dispute, and certain presumptions of paternity will be set down in statute.
I sponsored the Bill, as law reform falls within my departmental responsibility. At the Second Stage, it became apparent that the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee had an obvious interest in the subject matter. The Finance and Personnel Committee was obliging in allowing another Committee to conduct the scrutiny stage of the Bill. As a direct result of the deliberations of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, five amendments were tabled in my name at Consideration Stage. I thank those Committee members.
Although only one of the five amendments was substantive in nature, it significantly improved the Bill in the way in which it amends the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. The amended provision directs courts to look to the best interests of the child when considering an application to make a parental responsibility order in favour of an unmarried father or a step-parent.
As I said in an earlier debate, our legislation on the interests of the child is more advanced than that in other jurisdictions on these islands. Another innovation that others are following is the conferral of joint parental responsibility on those who jointly register the birth of their child. We all agree that that is a common sense measure that most people already assume to be the law.
Members are interested to know when the reforms will come into operation — should the Bill be passed. I cannot give a precise commencement date, but it is likely that the Bill’s substantive provisions will come into force in the autumn. The reason for the delay is that, although the Bill is short, there are a considerable number of court Rules and other Regulations that must be made so that the reforms can operate as intended.
For the most part, those Rules are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Court Service, and they are subject to scrutiny and endorsement by the Lord Chancellor. A complicating factor is the interaction between this Bill and certain provisions in Part IV of the recent Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill at Westminster.
My officials will use the time to develop an effective publicity and information campaign to raise the public’s awareness of the effect of the changes. Members who spoke earlier referred to that point.
Mr Speaker, I commend this short Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Family Law Bill [NIA 4/00] do now pass.

Committee Business: Assembly Standing Orders

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That, in Standing Order 47(7), after "five" insert:
"and such quorum shall be deemed to be present where Members are linked by a video conferencing facility."
The motion to amend Standing Order 47(7), a Cheann Comhairle, is required after advice from the Assembly Commission that it is actively exploring proposals to provide several of off-site locations to facilitate Committee meetings. The aim is to allow local people to have greater access to Assembly Committees and, equally, to allow Committees to interface with local communities. I am aware that several Committees have already undertaken oral evidence sessions outside Parliament Buildings. It is likely that that practice will increase.
One of the key issues raised by Committee Chairpersons in the Commission’s consultations about off-site meetings was the feasibility of using video conferencing. That raised the issue of whether a Committee meeting would be in quorum should video conferencing be used with, for example, three members in Parliament Buildings and two members in Omagh. The Assembly’s legal adviser has stated that, although the existing Standing Order 47 could be interpreted as permitting a quorum when members are linked by video, it would be better if the Standing Order made it absolutely clear that a quorum can be achieved in such instances. The Committee on Procedures accepts that advice and proposes the amendment to Standing Orders.

Mr James Leslie: I listened carefully to Mr Murphy, and, although for the most part this seems to be a sensible measure, it occurred to me that there might be one problem with it. The circumstances to which the Member referred were essentially in the context of a public Committee hearing, and I do not see any difficulty there. However, if for some reason a Committee does part of its business in private, how can it be certain that those persons who are participating in the meeting by video link are equally conducting their business in private? Although I regret to say that I did not think of that in time to table down an amendment, I wonder whether the Chairperson of the Committee might like to reflect on that matter for future reference.

Mr Conor Murphy: I thank Mr Leslie for his observation. Of course, Standing Orders provide that it is up to the Committees to set their own procedures on many of the issues. I am sure that that advice could be relayed to Committee Chairpersons who are intent on setting up an outside meeting with a video conference link. If some of the business must be done in private, they obviously need to reflect on that and set their own procedures in that regard.
I imagine that only certain types of meeting would be held outside of Committee rooms. To date, the only meetings of that nature have been to hear oral evidence. Those are the sorts of meetings — rather than private, in-house meetings about sensitive issues — that people would want to hold in the community. Once the motion to amend has been passed, the Members’ Committee can pass on observations and advice to the Committee Chairpersons through the Chairpersons’ liaison group.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 49; Noes 16
Ayes
Nationalist:
Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Mark Durkan, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.
Unionist:
Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Ivan Davis, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Ken Robinson, George Savage, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.
Other:
Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.
Noes
Unionist:
Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Peter Robinson, Denis Watson, Jim Wells.
Total Votes 65 Total Ayes 49 (75.4%) Nationalist Votes 25 Nationalist Ayes 25 (100.0%) Unionist Votes 35 Unionist Ayes 19 (54.3%)
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That, in Standing Order 47(7), after "five" insert:
"and such quorum shall be deemed to be present where Members are linked by a video conferencing facility."

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That, in Standing Order 72, delete all and insert:
"Subject to the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Member may move a motion for the suspension of one or more Standing Orders in whole or in part. A motion under this Standing Order shall require cross-community support within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998."
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I am somewhat at a loss as to why we were forced through the Lobbies on the previous motion. I was aware that the DUP was opposed to progress. I did not realise that that also extended to technological progress.
This motion to amend is part of the Standing Orders —

Mr Speaker: Order. Is this a point of order, Dr Paisley?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Yes. Surely it is entirely out of order for the Member to comment on the previous vote. His job is to move this motion now, but he has no right to start to comment on the previous vote.

Mr Speaker: If I were to interpret the rules of the House so strictly in that matter, we should certainly shorten all the debates by a substantial amount. I have listened to a number of questions to Ministers from all sides of the House, including the Member’s side, in the past hour and a half that were well wide of the mark. The Chairman of the Committee on Procedures should continue.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I continue to move forward. This motion to amend Standing Orders is part of the Committee on Procedures’ ongoing work to clarify, where necessary, the existing Standing Orders. In this instance, the motion has been moved to clarify the meaning of Standing Order 72, which allows for the suspension of Standing Orders to facilitate the Assembly’s plenary business in unusual circumstances or because of an unforeseen event.
Experience has shown that it has been used on several occasions, and that sometimes only part of a Standing Order has had to be suspended. The current wording of Standing Order 72 makes reference to "one or more Standing Orders", and my legal advice is that the reference to one may be interpreted to include part of a Standing Order. The Committee has been advised that the wording of that Standing Order should be tightened to make it clear that part of a Standing Order can also be suspended.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That, in Standing Order 72, delete all and insert:
"Subject to the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Member may move a motion for the suspension of one or more Standing Orders in whole or in part. A motion under this Standing Order shall require cross-community support within the meaning of Section 4(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998."
The sitting was suspended at 12.28 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Assembly Business

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, I gave notice to the Speaker —

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind the Member that points of order are taken at the end of Question Time. Your point of order may be taken at the end of the first half-hour session.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: This is nothing to do with today’s Question Time. It is an important point of order about which I have already spoken to the Speaker, and I want to put it on the record. It is a simple reference to what took place in the Assembly yesterday and is recorded in Hansard. Questions that were entirely out of order were put to Mr Morrow by Mr Leslie and Mrs Carson. I have referred the matter to the Speaker, and I told the Speaker that at the opening of this session I would put it on the record.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Member for his point of order. The matter has been raised with the Speaker and is being examined by him.

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Children’s Fund

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the current position on the development of the children’s fund and, in particular, the proposed timescale for consultation and further allocation of funds.
(AQO1601/00)


The first allocations from the children’s fund were announced on 2 April. It will provide £10·5 million over the next three years to 12 projects, which are to be developed by different Departments. Those are designed to assist children in need and young people at risk. The remaining £18·5 million will be distributed in future bidding rounds. We are committed to ensuring that the voluntary and community sectors are fully involved in that process.
The Executive will shortly consider proposals on the criteria that might be used to select future projects, and the structures that could be put in place to manage the allocation process and ensure that appropriate accountability mechanisms exist. Those are being developed taking account of initial views from the voluntary sector and will be subject to full consultation covering any associated equality implications over the summer and early autumn. When the consultation exercise is complete and the arrangements are finalised, we will move quickly to invite bids for support from the children’s fund and assess those in line with our final criteria. We hope that the timescale will ensure that the final arrangements reflect fully the views of the voluntary sector.


How will the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister use the criteria of the children’s fund to ensure that the Chancellor’s targets on reduction of children’s poverty are met in Northern Ireland?


It may be worth looking at the allocations to date, of which there have been several. Those include allocations for disabled children; £1·3 million for specialist residential units; £1·6 million for the Families for Life regional adopting service; £1·2 million for counselling support for pupils in schools, and contributions to the school age mothers programme. Those are the sort of areas to which the money has been allocated.
The criteria will be governed by their obligation to implement TSN requirements, which will be strictly applied. As elected representatives, we know the nature of the problem. We must try to ensure that every penny spent goes to children in need and at risk. We will welcome any advice from the volutary sector and elected representatives that will help us do that.


In his reply to the first question, the Deputy First Minister spoke about the views of the voluntary and community sector. Can the Deputy First Minister tell us how those views will be fully represented in the development of the children’s fund? What steps will be taken to ensure that the operation of the children’s fund fits with the developing children’s strategy?


We are very pleased that the voluntary sector has been involved in helping officials to develop proposals for the management of the children’s fund and hope to build on that productive relationship as we take the children’s fund forward.
Some time ago the First Minister and I had a valuable meeting with a large range of organisations connected with children. That type of dialogue has continued with officials, and it will develop. We recognise the sector’s key role in supporting children in need and young people at risk and the importance of ensuring that it is involved in distributing funding in future bidding rounds. After the Executive have had an opportunity to consider proposals for future allocations from the children’s fund, we are planning full consultation with the sector and other interested parties. Those proposals envisage the sector’s being actively involved in a number of aspects of that fund.
In addition we are committed to putting in place a comprehensive strategy on children’s rights and needs. The strategy will set out the Executive’s vision, values, strategic goals and specific objectives for children. It will also include a strong focus on children in need and young people at risk. The development of that strategy is being informed by experience gained through the operation of the children’s fund. It will be important to have consistency between the goals in the strategy and the long-term aims of the children’s fund, and we are committed to making sure that that will happen.


I am heartened by the Deputy First Minister’s comments. To allay earlier concerns, how will he will ensure that funding allocated to Departments or statutory bodies will not be used directly, or indirectly, for other things or to enable funds to be diverted from mainstream projects?


The first and obvious reply is vigilance to ensure that if money is channelled towards children in need or at risk that is where it goes. Funding from the Executive programme funds is ring- fenced within the respective Department baselines, thereby ensuring that it can only be used for the specific purpose for which it was made available. That will also ensure that any allocated funding no longer required must be returned for reallocation. I repeat: it must be returned for reallocation, and funds will be allocated to other bodies, whether in the statutory, voluntary or community sectors, on the same basis.
Officials are developing arrangements to ensure that all Executive programme fund allocations can be effectively monitored and accounted for. There will be no hiding place for those who try to divert money for children in need or at risk into other purposes; there will be no hiding place in the Administration, in the voluntary sector, in the community sector or in any other sector.

Strategic Plan

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline what plans there are to provide a strategic plan for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
(AQO1628/00)


The first corporate and business plan of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be available on Thursday, and copies will be placed in the Assembly Library.
Through the plan the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister as a Department seeks to promote good government and has several strategic aims. The first aim is to promote corporate thinking and collectivity in all institutions of the Government and to ensure that the Administration’s key policies are agreed and delivered. Other aims include ensuring the effective operation of all institutions; developing relations internationally and within these islands; communicating the policies and activities of Ministers and institutions of Government; building a Programme for Government and modernising the Government’s programme; and promoting better community relations in a culture of equality and human rights.
As Members will know, considerable progress has been made in realising those strategic aims, not least through the development of a programme for Government, including, for the first time, public service agreements, and also through the introduction of the concept of a single equality Bill and the implementation of evaluation of New TSN.


I thank the First Minister for his answer, and I welcome the fact that an announcement will be made on Thursday. Will the effectiveness of any plan be open to external evaluation and subject to ongoing monitoring and review?


Regular monitoring of what the Administration does is crucial. That is the primary function of the Assembly and its Committees. I expect that the Committee of the Centre will be particularly anxious to do that. Of course, many of the aims and objectives of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are directed towards co-ordinating the work of the Administration as a whole. In effect, our success should be measured in relation to the success of all the Departments collectively.


Is this plan not now in jeopardy, given that the First Minister has written a letter to the Speaker of the House telling him that he intends to resign from his office? That being so, does the First Minister not think that he has a responsibility to this House and to the country to tell people the exact terms of that letter? Is he going to resign if there is no announcement made by IRA/Sinn Féin? Is he going to resign if some arms are put away?


Order.


Is he going to resign if all arms are put away?


Order. The question refers to the strategic plan, and I will ask the First Minister to —


I am speaking to the plan. How can you have a plan when the First Minister has already said that he is resigning? It has taken him nearly 18 months to get to this plan.


Order.


When the corporate plan is produced, Members will be able to assess its quality and see that considerable work has gone into producing it. I must say that I was very interested to listen to the question as it was originally framed, because Dr Paisley was clearly expressing his concern about the future of this institution, and he was clearly indicating his desire to see it continue. That, of course, is entirely in accordance with the manifesto of that party, which shows that it is slowly creeping towards full acceptance of the agreement.


Order.


Will the First Minister assure the House that the corporate and business plan for his own Department targets issues such as training and staff development, which could contribute to equal opportunities for all the staff?


As in the Civil Service as a whole, we are committed to providing equality of opportunity. It is our policy that all eligible persons should have equal opportunity for appointment and advancement on the basis of their ability, qualifications and aptitude for the work. That is an issue that is carefully monitored to ensure that equality of opportunity is, in fact, provided.
The corporate and business plan also includes a commitment to ensure that staff have the necessary skills to meet the business needs of the Department and to fulfil statutory obligations. The implementation of that commitment includes an undertaking to produce a training and development needs analysis by September of this year and a training and development plan by March 2002. Given the unique nature of the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, one of the skills that we most need to acquire and develop is the skill to advise on policy formation.


Mr McGrady is absent and will receive a written answer.

Disability Rights Task Force

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the implementation of the report of the disability rights task force.
(AQO1630/00)


The Executive’s response to the recommendations in the disability rights task force’s report entitled ‘From Exclusion to Inclusion’ is being prepared. We plan to issue the response for consultation during the summer. The disability rights task force has set us a challenging agenda for ensuring comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled people, and we believe that its impressive report will play an important role in achieving equality of opportunity for disabled people in Northern Ireland.


I thank the First Minister for his reply. A major defect of the Disability Discrimination Act is the fact that it does not apply to education. The disability rights task force recognises that. What is being done to give rights in education to disabled children?


The Member is quite right to say that the disability rights task force recognised that gap in the Disability Discrimination Act, and he will also know that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, which takes forward the recommendations in Great Britain with regard to that aspect of education, received Royal Assent on 11 May.
Responsibility for taking those educational recommendations forward here rests with the Department of Education and with the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment — while it is still called that. Both Ministers have indicated their commitment to introducing legislation on those issues, and I hope that we will see it on the statute book as soon as possible.


Will the First Minister clarify the role of the Equality Commission in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act as it applies to Northern Ireland and in ensuring that issues in this report are implemented?


In relation to the Disability Discrimination Act, the Equality Commission has a role similar to that of the Disability Rights Commission in Great Britain. The Equality Commission has specific duties in relation to disability. Those include: to work towards the elimination of discrimination and promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people; to keep the legislation under review; to undertake formal investigations; to prepare statutory codes of practice giving practical guidance on how to comply with the law; and to provide information advice to employers and service providers.
In Great Britain, the Government have referred a number of the task force’s recommendations to the Disability Rights Commission as part of its role to monitor and review the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act. As the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has a similar role to perform in relation to the Act as it applies in Northern Ireland, we have already asked the Equality Commission to work in tandem with the Disability Rights Commission on those particular task force recommendations.

Freedom of Information Bill

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on the introduction of a freedom of information Bill.
(AQO1612/00)


No decision has yet been taken on separate additional legislation for Northern Ireland. The situation will be reviewed in the light of our experience with the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Westminster Freedom of Information Act at present extends to Northern Ireland. That Act must come into force within five years, and the Lord Chancellor has the responsibility for appointing dates for the different provisions to take effect.


The Minister’s response is extremely disappointing. I am sure that both he and his Colleague are aware of the fact that freedom of information was made a priority by the incoming Scottish Executive. As a result, the system of government in Scotland is considerably more open than in the UK as a whole.
If we are going to show the way forward in this Assembly, we should be seeking to do rather better than the very tardy progress in Westminster, which it appears the Ministers are satisfied with.


The Member is wrong on two counts. First, the Executive decided in February 2000 that the Freedom of Information Bill, which was passing through Parliament, should apply to Northern Ireland, because in the time available it would not have been possible to have had a freedom of information Bill on the statute book in this Assembly.
Hence we would have been without any freedom of information Bill. A decision has to be taken by the Executive either to continue with that or to draw up a freedom of information Bill for Northern Ireland. That is what many Members favour.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not cover the devolved Administration in Scotland. The Scottish Executive recently published a consultation document on draft freedom of information legislation. The proposals follow closely, but not exactly, the structure of the United Kingdom Act, and they are broadly similar in their provisions. As in the United Kingdom Act they propose to confer rights to information rather than access to documents and that there will be a roughly equivalent enforcement regime. A similar period of five years is proposed for the implementation following the enactment of the legislation.
Therefore there is no statutory regime in Scotland. There is no freedom of information legislation applying to Scotland. It is at the consultation period. I suggest to the Member that there was more wisdom in the decision taken by the Executive here to at least have a freedom of information Bill until such time as we could produce a better one, unlike Scotland which left itself without any and finds itself consulting.


In considering the freedom of information Bill or part of its provision — or even in advance of its introduction and in the interests of openness and transparency — will the Deputy First Minister use his influence with the First Minister, who takes his advice on many things and who regularly consults with him on every decision that he makes, and ask him to include details of his current resignation letter which has been kept hidden, his original resignation letter and the letter relating to policing that Mr John D Taylor received from the Prime Minister? Perhaps he could even throw in the opinion polls that he had done secretly and which told him that he was going to win the election when he lost it.


Order.


I thank the Member for the question. He sets me a difficult task. There will be discussions in the Executive about the important issue of freedom of information. I hope that the hon Member will be present.


I am not in the Executive.


Order.


The party represented by the hon Member has got revolving-door Ministries. I was guilty of thinking that the hon Member was still a Minister, but it is not his turn this week or next week. However, now that the election is out of the way we will maybe see the musical chairs operating again.
The First Minister and I do not consult each other; we make decisions jointly. The strength of this Administration is that it has the representatives of both sections of the community jointly making decisions. Come and join us and see that it works.


Assuming that democracy will survive, will the Minister tell the House what the likely steps will be to introduce the Freedom of Information Act?


Democracy will survive. It will survive in the Chamber and in the Administration.


Order.


It will survive because there have been those on both sides who have been at pains to show the alternative to democracy.
An independent working group of senior officials has been established to oversee the implementation of the Act across all Departments. Contact will be maintained with the Lord Chancellor’s Department and the Information Commissioner’s Office to establish best practice, promote awareness of obligations under the Act and ensure compliance with all aspects of the new legislation.
We are currently considering the most appropriate date to implement the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the devolved Administration. That depends on several factors, which include the time needed for the Information Commissioner to set up her office. The Executive Committee will be considering that matter shortly with a view to the First Minister and I reaching agreement with the Lord Chancellor on the implementation date to be applied here.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, following the initial relief package provided by the Executive for industries affected by foot-and-mouth disease, if any further relief measures are being considered; and to make a statement.
(AQO1616/00)


There has been a positive response from businesses to the financial relief package we announced on 21 May. There have been over 400 calls to the helpline to register interest in the help for business scheme as well as contact through the web site. Applications will be processed as quickly as possible by the new unit established to administer the scheme.
While we welcome the good news on regionalisation, which will lead to a reopening of export markets, we are aware that some businesses are still suffering due to the impact of foot-and-mouth disease, and we are keeping the situation under continual review. The interdepartmental task force led by the Economic Policy Unit continues to monitor the impact of foot-and-mouth disease on the Northern Ireland economy and provides regular reports to the Executive.


Can the Minister assure me that assistance measures available in Northern Ireland remain on a par with those in the rest of the UK, bearing in mind that foot-and-mouth disease was first diagnosed in GB and not here?


It is our aim that the assistance available here should be no less beneficial than that available in similar circumstances in Great Britain. Where there are legislative and other constraints, as in the case of rate relief, alternative ways of achieving the objective are being developed. Officials from our Department continue to attend the Whitehall rural task force to keep abreast of developments and wider economic issues in Great Britain, and I am sure that Northern Ireland benefits from any national schemes.
As the Member knows, the measures available in Northern Ireland include the following: the help for business scheme; the small firms loan guarantee scheme; the deferral of tax, VAT and National Insurance payments; business advice from LEDU and the IDB; marketing Northern Ireland and attracting promoters through the tourism recovery strategy; advice on alternative training and employment opportunities; advice on benefits and advice to farmers on farm business. The information leaflet published by the Executive entitled ‘Coping with Foot-and-Mouth Disease — Help for Businesses’ provides further details including contact numbers, and those can also be obtained from the web site.
As a way of showing that the assistance is as beneficial here as it is in Great Britain I would like to cite the marketing tourism scheme. We invested £1 million in the scheme — on a per capita basis adjusted for the size of Northern Ireland compared with GB — which is higher than the equivalent figures for across the water.

Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (Identity)

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline what plans there are to provide a clearer identity for the Office and the Executive.
(AQO1624/00)


It is important that the public can easily recognise and identify with the work of the Administration that serves it. With this in mind a corporate identity for the Executive and its Departments is currently being developed. It will provide a clear branding of all aspects of the work of the Administration and will feature on correspondence, publications, advertisements, buildings and vehicles. There will be an overarching branding framework for the Executive, but each Department will have its own clear identity within that structure in relation to its functions.
A strong corporate identity is important for the promotion of Northern Ireland’s interests in Europe, the United States and everywhere abroad. We want to provide a clear image for the devolved Administration that can be recognised everywhere.


I thank the Deputy First Minister for his response. Will he assure us that the Executive identity will be coherent and that all Departments, including the semi-detached Departments with DUP Ministers will be fully integrated and signed up to the programme?


The Member is pointing up the failure of two Ministers to participate properly in the workings of government. That is a major issue and one that brings no credit to those who are adopting that position. The corporate identity aims to make it easy for the public to recognise government and the relevant Departments within government. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the two Ministers who do not take part in the proper workings of this Administration to think again and probe sufficiently to see if they have any conscience left in calling themselves Ministers and not assuming responsibility.


Order. Time is up.

Regional Development

Mr McGrady is absent —[Interruption]. Order. The House is entitled to hear the proceedings. Question 1 in the name of Mr McGrady will receive a written answer. Question 2 in the name of Ms Armitage has been transferred to the Department of the Environment and will receive a written answer.

Rural Road Network

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development whether he has any plans to increase investment in the rural road network.
(AQO1604/00)


I indicated in my replies to recent similar questions that I am conscious that existing levels of funding to maintain and improve the road network fall short of the requirements. I will be considering the scale of the infrastructure investment required on roads, including rural roads, as part of the work underway to develop a 10-year regional transportation strategy for Northern Ireland
The regional transportation strategy will consider ways of increasing investment in transport infrastructure and how any additional money might best be spent. I hope to be in a position to present my draft regional transportation strategy to the Committee for Regional Development this autumn. Until the strategy is in place I will continue to press for additional funds for the road network at every opportunity. In the meantime I assure the House that my Department will continue to make the best use of the resources currently available to develop and maintain the rural road network.


I thank the Minister for his answer. I have written to him in relation to roads in Derrytrasna and Aghagallon in the Upper Bann constituency. One issue that was brought to my attention, along with every Member in the House who has been canvassing recently, was the state of rural roads. I am pleased with the Minister’s answer. The rural network away from the main roads is particularly bad, and there are a lot of potholes. People in rural areas pay the same taxes as everyone else, and they are entitled to equal services. Go raibh maith agat.


I am concerned about the maintenance and improvement of the rural roads network. We will spend approximately £44 million in the current financial year on structural maintenance of all roads. Some of that will be on rural roads.
That figure compares favourably with last year’s initial allocation of £39 million. The Roads Service and I have to constantly reappraise the need to improve the infrastructure of rural roads. The restrictive allocation of funding is a continual problem, which I know applies to other Departments as well. We will continue to keep that matter under review.


In the light of the imminent appearance of the results of the Hayes review of acute hospitals, has the Minister had discussions with the review group? Will he undertake to improve the rural trunk road network, particularly in Tyrone and Fermanagh, so that ambulances can have rapid transit in those areas?


I have not had direct correspondence with the Hayes review group, but I will endeavour to establish what level of communication took place between departmental officials and the group. I will inform the Member of the outcome.
The Member referred to roads in the west of the Province, particularly those in Tyrone and Fermanagh, and the accessibility of hospitals and essential services, something I am acutely aware of. Unfortunately, in the absence of additional funding, I will only be able to carry out works that have already been committed to in the present year. However, as a result of the hon Member’s question, I will look at the issues arising in Tyrone and Fermanagh.


First, I congratulate the Minister for Regional Development on his outstanding victory in East Londonderry and wish him well for his time in Westminster.


The Member is out of order. Will he please address the question?


I would be delighted to. A Northern Ireland Audit Office report has confirmed that expenditure in Northern Ireland on structural matters has consistently been inadequate. Has the Minister made bids to all possible funding sources to rectify that situation? In particular, was a bid made to the Executive programme funds?


I thank the Member for his comments as well as for his question. As I said, my Department is constantly revising and analysing that issue to see where possible additional moneys can be accessed. I can respond positively. For example, I recently told the Assembly that I had put in a bid for additional funding maintenance in excess of £48 million for roads capital and for roads structural maintenance. I am pleased to report that bids for capital works worth £27 million were successful. Unfortunately, other bids, particularly for structural maintenance, were unsuccessful. I repeat that we will continue to work on that until we get sufficient resources for what the public and every Member of this House wants — the improvement of the infrastructure of our rural and urban roads.

Ballyclare Sewage Treatment Works

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail when the commencement of works will begin to enhance the treatment of waste water at Ballyclare sewage treatment works.
(AQO1621/00)


Several options have been identified for the provision of enhanced waste water treatment for the Ballyclare area. A detailed technical and economic appraisal of those options is nearing completion.
I propose to consult in the near future with local public representatives about those options. I then hope to be able to announce the way ahead in the next two to three months. Work is expected to commence in October 2002. It will take 18 months to complete and will cost around £5 million. The starting date is subject to the completion of all the various stages, including planning approval. Improvements costing £500,000 will be made to the sewerage system in Ballyclare at the same time.


That is very welcome news. In November 1996, Malcolm Moss advised a concerned resident that no future development in Ballyclare should proceed until the sewerage system had been enhanced. Bearing that in mind, will the Minister assure me that three extensive housing developments, one on the Doagh Road by Clauglin Developments, the Ballyclare village project and a development at Ballyeaston Road in Ballyclare, amounting to hundreds of houses, will not proceed? Will he advise the Planning Service not to continue until the Ballyclare sewage treatment works have been substantially enhanced?


I hope that, given the timescale, any minor difficulties will be ironed out in the short term. I will need to look at the issue raised by the hon Member. I will, in consultation with the Planning Service and my Colleague Mr Foster, confer with the Member on the proposed developments that he mentioned to ensure that speedy completion of the works that I have mentioned does not stand in the way of development. However, the developments should not be held up interminably because of any problems that may be encountered because of my announcement.

Northern Ireland Railways

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give an assessment as to whether the new Northern Ireland Railways timetable provides appropriate levels of service.
(AQO1611/00)


I consider that the new Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) timetable provides appropriate levels of service, bearing in mind the limited rolling stock currently available. Because of the reopening on 10 June of the direct rail link between Antrim and Belfast, the new timetable provides journey time reductions of over 30 minutes for travel between Belfast and Antrim and all stations north and west of Antrim.
Those reductions have also enabled Translink to use its available rolling stock to provide a better service on the Londonderry to Belfast line. For example, there are now nine scheduled services each way on weekdays, compared to seven northbound and six southbound prior to the reopening of the line.


There are clearly benefits in the new timetable for the northern part of the region and for those travelling from the Waterside to Antrim and on to Belfast. How can the Minister assess the value of the Knockmore line, as he plans to do over the next year, when the only morning train from Antrim to Belfast via Lisburn is timed to suit school students who must be in Lisburn before 7.30 and workers who must be in Belfast before 8.00? Is it realistic to base any assessment on such a timetable?


As the Member knows, I am acutely aware of the problem. I received a number of deputations about the Antrim to Knockmore line and spoke to a number of people in the area before the decision to preserve the line for a further year was taken. I also spoke to people who were still lobbying when the announcement was made.
So, if there is a section of rail line in Northern Ireland that I am aware of, it is the Antrim to Knockmore section. My difficulty is that Northern Ireland Railways told me that it was in the unenviable position of having to open a new line. It cost approximately £17million to provide an efficient, effective service and increase and improve the level of service for the thousands of people who use that line. The line is now open. Unfortunately, the corollary of that was that the Antrim to Knockmore line could not be supplemented and built up to the same degree.
I was not prepared to contemplate the closure of the Antrim to Knockmore line, and I am still not prepared to contemplate it. I understand and accept the Member’s point that the current reduced service is not the best way of measuring the effectiveness of any service beyond the 12-month extension. Unfortunately, it is the only method that we have. I hope that we will be able to look again at the Antrim to Knockmore line in the regional transportation strategy, and I view its continued usage with sympathy and support. I hope that we will be able to preserve it, but I cannot say more than that.


When the new rolling stock is brought in for other lines, does the Minister intend to use the existing rolling stock for the Antrim to Knockmore line? Will the rolling stock be used at more appropriate hours so that peak-period public transport could be provided for people who wish to use the line?


I put forward similar propositions recently. Unfortunately, it will take approximately two years to acquire the new rolling stock. However, it is not as straightforward or as simple as preserving the line until new rolling stock becomes available and then transferring some of it to the Antrim to Knockmore line. We must also remember that there is a significant and substantial cost implication for preserving the line on safety grounds in the next three years or so. It will cost millions of pounds. The Member has raised the issue and I, as Minister, have already raised the issue in the Department. If it provides a possible source of preserving the line, I am open to looking at that.

Asbestos Water Mains

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development, pursuant to AQO1204/00, to state the length of asbestos cement water mains by county area.
(AQO1606/00)


There are approximately 1,250 miles of asbestos cement water mains located throughout NorthernIreland. That represents less than 10% of the total length of water mains. There are 210miles of asbestos cement water mains in Antrim; 50miles in Armagh; 140miles in Down; 130miles in Fermanagh; 370miles in Londonderry, and 350miles in Tyrone.


Undoubtedly the Minister will be aware of the degree of concern among environmentalists and the public regarding the health risk that asbestos cement water mains pose. Does he accept that during the repair of those mains there is a risk of water contamination by particles of asbestos falling into the water supply during the removal of the deficient sections? What safeguards have been implemented for the consumer, bearing in mind that engineers, recognising the health risk, are kitted out in special protective clothing when carrying out repairs?


I am aware of concerns about asbestos in water mains. As a result, I have tried to obtain an assessment of the situation from the health professionals. In 1996, the World Health Organisation advised that since
"there is no consistent evidence that ingested asbestos is hazardous to health"
the position remains unchanged since a review in 1998.
I understand the Member’s concern about the removal. The UK Water Research Centre carried out a review on the use of asbestos in the major European countries, the United States of America, Australia and Japan. It was found that most of those countries surveyed had stopped using asbestos cement pipes and that they had no plans to replace existing asbestos cement pipes, as these were not considered to present a health risk.
I am not in possession of information that indicates that there would be a substantial risk with the removal or replacement of those pipes. If I were, however, the position would be revised. The ongoing replacement of asbestos pipes will take some time to complete. At the moment, fewer than 10% of water mains are made of asbestos.

Sewage Treatment Works (Mid Ulster)

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail (a) how many sewage treatment works within the constituency of Mid Ulster are at full or excess capacity at this date and (b) his plans for resolving problem sites.
(AQO1614/00)


There are 27 waste water treatment works in the Mid Ulster constituency which serve population equivalents greater than 250. Four of these works, at Cookstown, Stewartstown, Sandholes and Magherafelt, operate in excess of their respective design capacities. A further seven works at Killeen, Coagh, Moneymore, Pomeroy, Clunto (Richardson), Creagh and Clady are approaching their respective design capacities. Work is already under way to upgrade the Killeen works, and that is due to be completed this autumn at a cost of approximately £600,000.
The Water Service plans to invest some £10 million in upgrading treatment facilities at eight works over the next five years, and investigations are being carried out into the options for upgrading the facilities at Pomeroy and Creagh. The largest project is the construction of a new treatment works at Cookstown. It is planned that that will commence in June 2002, take 18 months to complete and cost £5 million.


Does the Minister agree that the health of the people is most important and that a situation in which the sewerage provision is inadequate should not have arisen?


I am aware of the problems with waste water treatment works across Northern Ireland as well as with those in Mid Ulster, which I outlined in some detail. My concern is reflected in my bids to try to upgrade the entire network, but again the difficulty is with the lack of resources. Two months ago I outlined possible ways of getting substantially increased capital funding diverted towards Water Service capital works schemes, and I am currently examining them.
I will continue to do that, and I will report to the House if and when we successfully obtain the funds.

Provision of Footpaths (Rural Areas)

8. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the criteria applied in rural areas when considering the provision of footpaths.
(AQO1629/00)


Schemes to provide new and improved footways are considered by Roads Service for inclusion in minor roadworks programmes. Footways and other minor works proposals must compete for priority, given the limited funding that is available. In assessing the priority of footway schemes, consideration is given to a number of factors, including: pedestrian counts; traffic volumes; the potential for pedestrian and traffic growth; accident histories; environmental factors, such as the presence of schools, churches, et cetera; the practicality of constructing the schemes and the cost of the schemes and the availability of funds.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)


Does the Minister agree that children at rural schools are at particular risk when there is a high volume of through traffic? Will he undertake to identify the high-risk areas, with a view to providing footpaths where the risk is clearly too high? The Portglenone to Randalstown road is one place where I see schoolchildren running the gauntlet of the traffic as I travel to and from this House.


I am aware of the safety problems faced by rural schools in particular — probably more acutely in the winter, but also throughout the year. I will undertake to examine the specific instance that the Member has come across between his constituency and Parliament Buildings. I will respond in writing about that.


Does the Minister agree that in determining the criteria for the provision of footpaths in rural areas, consideration should also be given to cycle lanes in order to enhance the amenity value of the countryside? That would enhance the potential for rural tourism as part of the diversification of the rural economy.


The short answer is "Yes", but the Member will expect a more substantial answer than that.
The charitable organisation Sustrans has been in constant communication with Roads Service in trying to establish suitable areas, most but not all of them rural, where cycle lanes could be provided. A number of cycle lanes have been established in recent days; I have opened two in the past six months. However, I look forward to any increased funding, whether from bids that I make or from Sustrans or any other source, that would enable me to respond favourably to the Member and to ensure that increased numbers of cycle paths are included where it is possible to construct footways.

Flying of Paramilitary Flags (Policy)

9. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what steps have been taken to co-ordinate policy between his Department, the RUC and NIHE to prevent the flying of paramilitary flags, the defacing of tombstones and the painting of offensive murals; and to make a statement.
(AQO1626/00)


Problems associated with the flying of flags and emblems and with the painting of graffiti and murals are widespread across Northern Ireland. While my Department’s property is often used for such purposes, many other properties are also affected, for example, properties belonging to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, district councils, Northern Ireland Electricity and British Telecom, as well as those of many private individuals.
On receipt of complaints about the flying of flags on Roads Service property, my Department will try to gauge community reaction to determine the likely success of any efforts that might be taken to remove flags. That is generally done through consultation with the RUC and/or local councillors or other public representatives in the area.


It is a difficult situation, and I know that the Minister is trying to deal with it as much as possible.
Given the increase in the number of flags, does the Minister agree that his Department should take the lead so that people in affected areas can be freed from fear and possible intimidation? The Minister said that his Department deals with complaints about flags and that they are in consultation with the affected communities. However, those communities often live in fear and are scared to get involved. This morning, in broad daylight, flags were being erected on the main road to Tullycarnet — the issue must be dealt with as soon as possible.


The Member knows the Department’s policy on graffiti and the flying of flags on departmental property. It has been said many times that the Department will try to remove from its property any illegal flags and graffiti that are a danger to road users. In other instances, where there is no danger, in spite of there being no legislative requirement to do so, the Roads Service will seek to remove such material on the advice of the RUC and where there is strong local support. The problem is that often the removal of flags leads to the erection of more flags than there were before. That is why the Roads Service places great importance on local community support for the removal of flags. There is concern about the flying of flags in communities during a few weeks in the summer, but also about those areas where flags fly all year. Those flags are equally unacceptable.

Environment
Third-Party Planning Appeals

1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to introduce third-party planning appeals.
(AQO1617/00)


I have no plans to introduce third-party planning appeals. I have examined the case for introducing such appeals before, but there are well-established procedures in the planning process that allow third parties to submit representations and objections. The introduction of third-party rights of appeal would add delay, cost and uncertainty to the planning process. I recognise, however, that that is an evolving area, and I have asked my officials to keep procedures and policy under review.


I am grateful that the Minister is keeping the matter under review, however, I would like to be more specific. Consider a situation where a council is unanimous in its objection to or support for a development. Does the Minister agree that a council, made up of elected representatives, that unanimously objects to a departmental proposal should have a right to appeal rather than being dismissed out of hand as is currently the case?


I take the Member’s important point on board. As I said, this is an evolving matter which we will continue to keep an eye on. The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 provides applicants with a right to appeal against a refusal of planning permission. There is no right of appeal for third parties, but they can make representations on planning applications. As I have said, such appeals would cause delays and uncertainty and add costs to the planning process. A third-party appeal system could also be vulnerable to abuse.


Will the Minister outline the possible impact of a third-party right of appeal on the planning process?


My Department has estimated that the introduction of a third-party right of appeal could result in an additional 700 appeals a year, which is quite a number compared to approximately 350 appeals a year at present. That would cost upwards of £1million a year. I am not sure that the system would be able to take such an increase at this time without more resources. It is a difficult issue.


I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response on this occasion. He must get real on this issue. People are not satisfied with what is currently on offer. He mentions the planning problems experienced by people in business. What about the problems of the individuals whose human rights are being damaged by many large businesses that have trampled and abused the planning system for years? When are those peoples’ rights going to be recognised?


Everyone is equal as far as we are concerned, whether their business is large or small. There is no discrimination — each planning application is taken on its own merits. I recognise that the Human Rights Act places increased emphasis on the protection of individual rights. The rights of third parties are well protected under the current planning system. However, as I said, this is an evolving area, and my Department is continuing to keep policy and procedures under very close review.

Coastal Forum

3. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the cost of establishing a coastal forum.
(AQO1610/00)


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have omitted question no 2.


I shall not take points of order during ministerial Question Time.


I regret that I have only recently been able to write to the Member to provide the information that he sought in the supplementary question some time ago.
My officials have estimated that the direct staff costs of establishing and providing support for a coastal forum could well exceed £100,000 per annum. However, that figure takes no account of the senior staff time that my Department would have to devote to supporting the work of a coastal forum. Nor does it take account of the input that would be needed from other Departments, or of other probable costs such as expenditure on research, travel, and so forth. Therefore the true cost of establishing and supporting the work of a coastal forum is likely to be much higher.
As I made clear in responses to earlier questions, the additional resources made available in the Budget last year were not sufficient to enable my Department to establish and support a forum. I have said that I see some merit in the proposal. However, meeting my Department’s commitments in the Programme for Government and the public service agreement must have first claim on resources.


I thank the Minister for the responses that I received last week to my questions of some months ago.
I accept his point that there is a cost attached to setting up a coastal forum. However, does he not agree that, in the absence of a coastal forum, senior staff time is likely to be taken up with dealing with those issues anyway? Given the importance of the issues that a coastal forum would deal with, and the cross- departmental themes involving the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department for Regional Development, is it not time that the Department submitted a bid under the Executive programme funds to ensure that the small amount of money that could be produced for overall benefits is committed in future spending rounds?


As I said, the additional resources made available in the Budget last year were not sufficient to enable my Department to establish and support a forum. I am very much aware of the concern that exists and will take that into consideration. I will continue to seek the necessary resources in the forthcoming spending round.
Moreover, in view of the potential cross-cutting nature of the role of such a body, any decision to establish a forum would also require agreement on the scope of its remit. Therefore I have written to Minister Rodgers and Minister Campbell, whose Departments would have the most direct interest in such a body, to seek their views on the merits of the proposal — subject to resources of course.


Can the Minister assure us that he and his Department are really considering the establishment of a coastal forum?


I can assure Mrs Carson and the House that we are not taking this lightly, but we do not have the resources. I will continue to seek the necessary resources in the forthcoming spending round, but other priorities have taken precedence at this time. I can assure Members that it is not being taken lightly.

Biodiversity Strategy

4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail progress made with proposals for a biodiversity strategy since their launch last October, and to outline the timetable for the adoption of the strategy.
(AQO1618/00)


In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government, I intend to publish a Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy by the end of October 2001. In preparing the strategy, careful account will be taken of the 76 recommendations for action that I received last autumn from the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group. The group’s recommendations have implications not only for Departments but also for other sectors and, indeed, for wider society in Northern Ireland. Many of them also call for action that would need to be sustained over the long term.
My officials have been discussing the recommendations with other relevant Departments. I expect to receive a first draft of the strategy in the next few weeks. In the meantime, my Department is drawing up plans for allocating the additional resources for biodiversity secured in the Budget last year.


Can the Minister assure me that the proposals of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group will not merely be taken into account, as he has recently been quoted as saying, but will in fact form the backbone — a very strong backbone — of that strategy? I would be concerned if attempts were made to water down their proposals.


I can assure the Member that there is no attempt at all to water down any proposals, and we will look at them specifically. I expect that the strategy being prepared will set out the broad approach to be followed in conserving biodiversity, and that more detailed implementation plans will subsequently be drawn up. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group for the sterling work it undertook, work which has done so much to advance preparation of an agreed biodiversity strategy. I am not yet in a position to say precisely how the group’s recommendations will be reflected in the strategy. However, as I have already said, careful account is being taken of the group’s report.


Mrs Eileen Bell has notified me that she will be absent and will receive a written answer to question 5.

Telecommunication Antennae

6. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to amend the planning regulations in respect of the attachment of telecommunication antennae to existing structures.
(AQO1605/00)


My Department issued a consultation paper on 10 November 2000 seeking views on possible changes to planning legislation for the control of development by licensed telecommunications code system operators. The deadline of 16 January 2001 for replies was extended in order to allow more time for the Environment Committee to provide a response. Its comments were received on 5 April 2001.
Following a discussion on the outcome of the consultation paper on 14 June 2001, the Executive Committee decided that the best way forward was for full planning procedures to be applied to telecommunication masts. I have asked my officials to consider what legislation is necessary to implement the Executive Committee’s decision, and I expect to be able to introduce that legislation in the autumn. The attachment of telecommunication antennae to existing structures will be taken into consideration in that process.


I note the positive nature of the Minister’s response. I know that he has been inundated with matters concerning telecommunication masts, but I will just add to his burden. In the light of the clustering of antennae and the sharing arrangements for telecommunication masts and equipment, does the Minister accept that new planning legislation is required? Does the Minister have any proposals to specifically include clustering and sharing arrangements in the new proposed legislation?


Telecommunication masts are a big problem. However, in the course of the legislative process the Department will consider and take note of Mr Carrick’s comments.


Does the Minister accept that the lack of neighbourhood notification about those masts has created many problems, and can he say how he intends to legislate on the matter? Can he also update me on the controversial case of the masts near Newry and Jerrettspass? I am grateful for his assistance in the matter.


All aspects will be taken into consideration. The Jerrettspass situation was difficult. My officials have had discussions with Crown Castle, the developer’s agents in this case, and they have indicated their intention to remove the mast as soon as the operator can identify an alternative means of providing a service, but I do not expect any undue delay. I am grateful to One 2 One and Crown Castle for their co-operation in that matter.


Does the Minister agree that many of the microwave dishes and antennae that are attached to two masts under permitted development are now illegal, since most of them have been extended in the meantime?


It will take some time to prepare the necessary legislation. As we can only apply the current legislation, masts erected under permitted development will remain.

High-Density Developments

7. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline his plans to reverse the current trend of high-density developments that have radically affected the social and demographic character of many of our coastal towns.
(AQO1603/00)


I have discussed those concerns with the Member in the past. My Department’s planning policy statement 7, ‘Quality Residential Environments’, is to be published in its final form soon, and it will require developers to provide high-quality proposals that are sympathetic to the character of an existing area. It will also provide for development plans to identify local design requirements for new residential development which could include, for example, dwelling numbers, mix and types.
My Department will also issue draft supplementary planning guidance in the summer for consultation. It will take the form of a development control advice note, providing specific guidance on proposals for small unit housing within existing urban areas. Although it will not set policy, it will give guidance to developers on the physical form of housing development, including apartments, and the relationship to surrounding properties.
The development plan process will continue to provide communities with an opportunity to comment on and influence the future development of their areas. That opportunity will be enhanced by the recently introduced issues paper approach to the early stages of the process. In addition, the Department for Regional Development is preparing a regional planning policy statement on ‘Housing in Settlements’, which will provide strategic guidance on a range of social and sustainable housing policies.


I was reasonably happy with the Minister until he informed me that his new advice note will be for guidance only. We have had guidance before, and guidance for developers is unsatisfactory. Does the Minister feel that mere guidance is good enough, as this is a major problem in many coastal areas? People can either take guidance or ignore it, and I ask the Minister if he has something more secure to eradicate this problem.


We all need guidance of some kind in every aspect of life, and guidance is important in policies. The objective of planning policy must be to accommodate the growing demand for affordable housing, which is driven by demographic changes and the rising number of households.
The regional development strategy will set a target for growth in the number of new dwellings to be provided in existing urban areas. The Planning Service has been engaged in the quality initiative. The purpose of that initiative has been to promote a design-led approach in order to achieve quality housing schemes in existing urban areas. The ‘Creating Places’ layout guide published in May2000 is assisting that process.


Mr McGrady has advised me that he will be absent. Question No 8 in the name of MrMcGrady will therefore receive a written answer.

Zebra Mussels

9. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail what research has been carried out to identify possible controls for zebra mussels infesting Lough Erne; and to make a statement.
(AQO1620/00)


My Department, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department for Regional Development have established an interdepartmental group to co-ordinate action on this problem. Waterways Ireland and Queen’s University are also represented. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has initiated a three-year study of the ecological impacts of the mussels on Lough Erne. That study is investigating changes in algae, water clarity, nutrient levels and the impact on native swan mussel beds. It has found that zebra mussels have consumed much of the algae in the lake and that water clarity is at the highest level ever recorded.
The majority of the native swan mussel beds have been colonised, and there is a threat of local extinction of those mussels. Further research, funded by my Department, is now being undertaken to predict the impacts and to assess the effectiveness of control measures for other lakes in Northern Ireland. However, it is impossible to control the zebra mussel infestation in Lough Erne. They have become densely established on all available hard surfaces throughout both the upper and lower loughs. I am disappointed about that, as I come from that part of the world myself. It is a difficult situation.


I echo the Minister’s concern. His reply has been useful, but I am particularly concerned about the cost to Northern Ireland. Can we recoup some of the costs from the Republic, where the infestation came from? I am concerned that we have lost algae and some of the pondweeds and the plankton that the fish eat. How will the Minister and his Department ensure that the fish stocks in both loughs will not be endangered?


As I have said, zebra mussels are now very abundant in Upper and Lower Lough Erne but have not spread elsewhere in Northern Ireland. The most obvious effect has been an increase in the clarity of the water in shallow areas. This is mostly because zebra mussels feed by filtering the water and extracting the microscopic aquatic life.
The effect of zebra mussels on fish stocks is very worrying. The effect will be indirect, and it will take some time to become fully apparent. It is expected that changes to water quality, bottom sediments and ultimately the fish food chain will affect fish populations to some extent. Ongoing work by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on fish stocks in Lough Erne will indicate future changes.
It could be very difficult to get money from the Republic of Ireland, but zebra mussels did come through from the Shannon into Lough Erne. That is rather sad. I would advise people to closely monitor their boats to ensure that no more of them come in. Take ultimate precautions, hose down well, scrub and be very watchful and careful. Once they are in, they are difficult to control.

Speed Limiting Measures

10. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail what research has been carried out into the feasibility of applying innovative speed limiting measures to vehicles.
(AQO1615/00)


The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions completed a research project last year on intelligent speed adaptation systems. Those can automatically restrict the maximum speed of vehicles to the relevant speed limit. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has recently begun a further research project examining how intelligent speed adaptation might affect driving behaviour. That work is complementary to work being carried out in other European countries, particularly Sweden and the Netherlands. Initial results suggest that those systems offer the prospect of significantly reducing the number and severity of speed-related collisions. However, vehicle construction standards are governed by EU Regulations, and any requirement for the compulsory fitting of intelligent speed limiters would therefore need to be agreed at European level.
Discussions at European level are under way, although those are still at an early stage. My Department will continue to monitor developments in this area through its contacts with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.


Has the Minister any plans for using new technology such as computerising vehicles?


There are currently no plans to require the introduction of external vehicle speed control, otherwise known as intelligent speed adaptation. Consideration of any wider application of speed limitation devices is still at an exploratory stage and would require widespread public consultation. It is not, therefore, a feasible option in the short term, but given sufficient public support, intelligent speed limiters could in future make a contribution to preventing collisions or reducing their severity.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.. Many people would consider that most of the speed measures are another means of collecting money from the public who use the roads. Are there statistics that show the impact of slow drivers? Sometimes they are farmers. Slow driving can have an impact on road accidents. Is the Minister doing anything to educate people about how slow driving, as well as speed, is a major cause of road accidents?


Excessive speed remains the most common cause of collisions, but there is no doubt that slow drivers also create problems. Drivers lose their patience with slow drivers and try to overtake.
Excessive speed accounted for almost a fifth of all collisions that resulted in fatalities or serious casualties between 1994 and 1998. The ‘Northern Ireland Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010’ consultation document invites comments on proposed new initiatives to improve driver ability and significantly change the public’s attitude to excessive speed. New initiatives aim to persuade drivers that neither experience nor advanced car technology makes it safe or acceptable to drive at excessive speed. Responses to the consultation document can be made before 27 July. If the Member or any other Members have a useful response to make, we would be receptive to it.

Disability Awareness Training (PSV Drivers)

11. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to provide disability awareness training for PSV drivers.
(AQO1619/00)


My Department has no powers to provide disability awareness training for PSV drivers. I have, however, asked my officials to liaise with Disability Action with a view to preparing a fact sheet on disability awareness training. That could be made available to operators involved in the passenger road transport sector. Translink, which operates the majority of road passenger transport services, already engages the services of a disability awareness officer and provides training on disability awareness for staff. I encourage other PSV operators to include disability awareness as part of their customer care training.


Unfortunately, when people are asked to volunteer, it does not always happen. Is it possible that the Minister’s Department will take an initiative similar to the one that the Department of Education has taken on training all escorts and drivers who deal with young children with disabilities? Will the Minister consider making such training compulsory before a PSV driver can get a licence?


I cannot give an assurance that we will take that on, but we will see what we can come up with. This is very important, and we could pursue it with other Departments. We will think about what the Member has said without giving any commitment to taking it on.

Landfill Site, Movilla Road, Newtownards

12. asked the Minister of the Environment whether the landfill site at Movilla Road, Newtownards is currently operating within planning guidelines.
(AQO1613/00)


A planning approval to carry out infill operations at the site, together with the provision of facilities to allow for the recycling and recovery of materials, was granted on 22 November 1999. The approval limited the categories of waste to be deposited on the site and the permitted levels of infilling. It also included a requirement that the site should be restored when approved levels are reached, or if infilling ceased for a period of six months. The planning permission also included the erection of a storage building.
A recent site inspection by my officials revealed that while the materials being used as infill are as permitted, the level of infilling appears to be slightly higher than approved. However, it is the experience of the Planning Service that those levels will decrease naturally as the material consolidates. My officials will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that infilling is maintained within the approved levels. Enforcement action will be taken if necessary.
The inspection also revealed that the storage building which formed part of the application has been erected 80 metres from the approved location and is also significantly larger in scale than that indicated on the approved plan. The operator has been warned that that development is unauthorised and that enforcement action may be pursued if it cannot be regularised with a planning permission. In line with normal enforcement policy, he has been asked to submit a planning application for that development. It will be considered on its merits, and if refused, appropriate enforcement action will then be taken.


I am sure that the Minister’s response will be gratefully received by the local residents who have been complaining about the matter for many years. Will the Minister ask his Department to keep a close watch on the activities on that site? If the person operating the site does not comply, will the Minister and his departmental officials take action to ensure that the planning authority rules are not breached?


Yes, we will certainly monitor the situation. If enforcement action is necessary, it will be taken.


Our time is up.


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that question 2 on the Order Paper, posed by Mrs Courtney, who is no longer in her place, appears to have been ignored. May I ask for an explanation?


I neglected to say that the question in the name of Mrs Courtney had been transferred to the Department for Regional Development and will receive a written answer.
Adjourned at 4.03 pm.

Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Children’s Fund

Mr Billy Hutchinson: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the current position on the development of the children’s fund and, in particular, the proposed timescale for consultation and further allocation of funds.
(AQO1601/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The first allocations from the children’s fund were announced on 2 April. It will provide £10·5 million over the next three years to 12 projects, which are to be developed by different Departments. Those are designed to assist children in need and young people at risk. The remaining £18·5 million will be distributed in future bidding rounds. We are committed to ensuring that the voluntary and community sectors are fully involved in that process.
The Executive will shortly consider proposals on the criteria that might be used to select future projects, and the structures that could be put in place to manage the allocation process and ensure that appropriate accountability mechanisms exist. Those are being developed taking account of initial views from the voluntary sector and will be subject to full consultation covering any associated equality implications over the summer and early autumn. When the consultation exercise is complete and the arrangements are finalised, we will move quickly to invite bids for support from the children’s fund and assess those in line with our final criteria. We hope that the timescale will ensure that the final arrangements reflect fully the views of the voluntary sector.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: How will the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister use the criteria of the children’s fund to ensure that the Chancellor’s targets on reduction of children’s poverty are met in Northern Ireland?

Mr Seamus Mallon: It may be worth looking at the allocations to date, of which there have been several. Those include allocations for disabled children; £1·3 million for specialist residential units; £1·6 million for the Families for Life regional adopting service; £1·2 million for counselling support for pupils in schools, and contributions to the school age mothers programme. Those are the sort of areas to which the money has been allocated.
The criteria will be governed by their obligation to implement TSN requirements, which will be strictly applied. As elected representatives, we know the nature of the problem. We must try to ensure that every penny spent goes to children in need and at risk. We will welcome any advice from the volutary sector and elected representatives that will help us do that.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: In his reply to the first question, the Deputy First Minister spoke about the views of the voluntary and community sector. Can the Deputy First Minister tell us how those views will be fully represented in the development of the children’s fund? What steps will be taken to ensure that the operation of the children’s fund fits with the developing children’s strategy?

Mr Seamus Mallon: We are very pleased that the voluntary sector has been involved in helping officials to develop proposals for the management of the children’s fund and hope to build on that productive relationship as we take the children’s fund forward.
Some time ago the First Minister and I had a valuable meeting with a large range of organisations connected with children. That type of dialogue has continued with officials, and it will develop. We recognise the sector’s key role in supporting children in need and young people at risk and the importance of ensuring that it is involved in distributing funding in future bidding rounds. After the Executive have had an opportunity to consider proposals for future allocations from the children’s fund, we are planning full consultation with the sector and other interested parties. Those proposals envisage the sector’s being actively involved in a number of aspects of that fund.
In addition we are committed to putting in place a comprehensive strategy on children’s rights and needs. The strategy will set out the Executive’s vision, values, strategic goals and specific objectives for children. It will also include a strong focus on children in need and young people at risk. The development of that strategy is being informed by experience gained through the operation of the children’s fund. It will be important to have consistency between the goals in the strategy and the long-term aims of the children’s fund, and we are committed to making sure that that will happen.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am heartened by the Deputy First Minister’s comments. To allay earlier concerns, how will he will ensure that funding allocated to Departments or statutory bodies will not be used directly, or indirectly, for other things or to enable funds to be diverted from mainstream projects?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The first and obvious reply is vigilance to ensure that if money is channelled towards children in need or at risk that is where it goes. Funding from the Executive programme funds is ring- fenced within the respective Department baselines, thereby ensuring that it can only be used for the specific purpose for which it was made available. That will also ensure that any allocated funding no longer required must be returned for reallocation. I repeat: it must be returned for reallocation, and funds will be allocated to other bodies, whether in the statutory, voluntary or community sectors, on the same basis.
Officials are developing arrangements to ensure that all Executive programme fund allocations can be effectively monitored and accounted for. There will be no hiding place for those who try to divert money for children in need or at risk into other purposes; there will be no hiding place in the Administration, in the voluntary sector, in the community sector or in any other sector.

Strategic Plan

Mr Joe Byrne: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline what plans there are to provide a strategic plan for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
(AQO1628/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The first corporate and business plan of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will be available on Thursday, and copies will be placed in the Assembly Library.
Through the plan the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister as a Department seeks to promote good government and has several strategic aims. The first aim is to promote corporate thinking and collectivity in all institutions of the Government and to ensure that the Administration’s key policies are agreed and delivered. Other aims include ensuring the effective operation of all institutions; developing relations internationally and within these islands; communicating the policies and activities of Ministers and institutions of Government; building a Programme for Government and modernising the Government’s programme; and promoting better community relations in a culture of equality and human rights.
As Members will know, considerable progress has been made in realising those strategic aims, not least through the development of a programme for Government, including, for the first time, public service agreements, and also through the introduction of the concept of a single equality Bill and the implementation of evaluation of New TSN.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the First Minister for his answer, and I welcome the fact that an announcement will be made on Thursday. Will the effectiveness of any plan be open to external evaluation and subject to ongoing monitoring and review?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Regular monitoring of what the Administration does is crucial. That is the primary function of the Assembly and its Committees. I expect that the Committee of the Centre will be particularly anxious to do that. Of course, many of the aims and objectives of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are directed towards co-ordinating the work of the Administration as a whole. In effect, our success should be measured in relation to the success of all the Departments collectively.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is this plan not now in jeopardy, given that the First Minister has written a letter to the Speaker of the House telling him that he intends to resign from his office? That being so, does the First Minister not think that he has a responsibility to this House and to the country to tell people the exact terms of that letter? Is he going to resign if there is no announcement made by IRA/Sinn Féin? Is he going to resign if some arms are put away?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is he going to resign if all arms are put away?

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The question refers to the strategic plan, and I will ask the First Minister to —

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am speaking to the plan. How can you have a plan when the First Minister has already said that he is resigning? It has taken him nearly 18 months to get to this plan.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: When the corporate plan is produced, Members will be able to assess its quality and see that considerable work has gone into producing it. I must say that I was very interested to listen to the question as it was originally framed, because Dr Paisley was clearly expressing his concern about the future of this institution, and he was clearly indicating his desire to see it continue. That, of course, is entirely in accordance with the manifesto of that party, which shows that it is slowly creeping towards full acceptance of the agreement.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mrs Joan Carson: Will the First Minister assure the House that the corporate and business plan for his own Department targets issues such as training and staff development, which could contribute to equal opportunities for all the staff?

Rt Hon David Trimble: As in the Civil Service as a whole, we are committed to providing equality of opportunity. It is our policy that all eligible persons should have equal opportunity for appointment and advancement on the basis of their ability, qualifications and aptitude for the work. That is an issue that is carefully monitored to ensure that equality of opportunity is, in fact, provided.
The corporate and business plan also includes a commitment to ensure that staff have the necessary skills to meet the business needs of the Department and to fulfil statutory obligations. The implementation of that commitment includes an undertaking to produce a training and development needs analysis by September of this year and a training and development plan by March 2002. Given the unique nature of the work of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, one of the skills that we most need to acquire and develop is the skill to advise on policy formation.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr McGrady is absent and will receive a written answer.

Disability Rights Task Force

Dr Joe Hendron: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make a statement on the implementation of the report of the disability rights task force.
(AQO1630/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Executive’s response to the recommendations in the disability rights task force’s report entitled ‘From Exclusion to Inclusion’ is being prepared. We plan to issue the response for consultation during the summer. The disability rights task force has set us a challenging agenda for ensuring comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled people, and we believe that its impressive report will play an important role in achieving equality of opportunity for disabled people in Northern Ireland.

Dr Joe Hendron: I thank the First Minister for his reply. A major defect of the Disability Discrimination Act is the fact that it does not apply to education. The disability rights task force recognises that. What is being done to give rights in education to disabled children?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member is quite right to say that the disability rights task force recognised that gap in the Disability Discrimination Act, and he will also know that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, which takes forward the recommendations in Great Britain with regard to that aspect of education, received Royal Assent on 11 May.
Responsibility for taking those educational recommendations forward here rests with the Department of Education and with the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment — while it is still called that. Both Ministers have indicated their commitment to introducing legislation on those issues, and I hope that we will see it on the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the First Minister clarify the role of the Equality Commission in relation to the Disability Discrimination Act as it applies to Northern Ireland and in ensuring that issues in this report are implemented?

Rt Hon David Trimble: In relation to the Disability Discrimination Act, the Equality Commission has a role similar to that of the Disability Rights Commission in Great Britain. The Equality Commission has specific duties in relation to disability. Those include: to work towards the elimination of discrimination and promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people; to keep the legislation under review; to undertake formal investigations; to prepare statutory codes of practice giving practical guidance on how to comply with the law; and to provide information advice to employers and service providers.
In Great Britain, the Government have referred a number of the task force’s recommendations to the Disability Rights Commission as part of its role to monitor and review the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act. As the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has a similar role to perform in relation to the Act as it applies in Northern Ireland, we have already asked the Equality Commission to work in tandem with the Disability Rights Commission on those particular task force recommendations.

Freedom of Information Bill

Mr David Ford: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on the introduction of a freedom of information Bill.
(AQO1612/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: No decision has yet been taken on separate additional legislation for Northern Ireland. The situation will be reviewed in the light of our experience with the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Westminster Freedom of Information Act at present extends to Northern Ireland. That Act must come into force within five years, and the Lord Chancellor has the responsibility for appointing dates for the different provisions to take effect.

Mr David Ford: The Minister’s response is extremely disappointing. I am sure that both he and his Colleague are aware of the fact that freedom of information was made a priority by the incoming Scottish Executive. As a result, the system of government in Scotland is considerably more open than in the UK as a whole.
If we are going to show the way forward in this Assembly, we should be seeking to do rather better than the very tardy progress in Westminster, which it appears the Ministers are satisfied with.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member is wrong on two counts. First, the Executive decided in February 2000 that the Freedom of Information Bill, which was passing through Parliament, should apply to Northern Ireland, because in the time available it would not have been possible to have had a freedom of information Bill on the statute book in this Assembly.
Hence we would have been without any freedom of information Bill. A decision has to be taken by the Executive either to continue with that or to draw up a freedom of information Bill for Northern Ireland. That is what many Members favour.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not cover the devolved Administration in Scotland. The Scottish Executive recently published a consultation document on draft freedom of information legislation. The proposals follow closely, but not exactly, the structure of the United Kingdom Act, and they are broadly similar in their provisions. As in the United Kingdom Act they propose to confer rights to information rather than access to documents and that there will be a roughly equivalent enforcement regime. A similar period of five years is proposed for the implementation following the enactment of the legislation.
Therefore there is no statutory regime in Scotland. There is no freedom of information legislation applying to Scotland. It is at the consultation period. I suggest to the Member that there was more wisdom in the decision taken by the Executive here to at least have a freedom of information Bill until such time as we could produce a better one, unlike Scotland which left itself without any and finds itself consulting.

Mr Nigel Dodds: In considering the freedom of information Bill or part of its provision — or even in advance of its introduction and in the interests of openness and transparency — will the Deputy First Minister use his influence with the First Minister, who takes his advice on many things and who regularly consults with him on every decision that he makes, and ask him to include details of his current resignation letter which has been kept hidden, his original resignation letter and the letter relating to policing that Mr John D Taylor received from the Prime Minister? Perhaps he could even throw in the opinion polls that he had done secretly and which told him that he was going to win the election when he lost it.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for the question. He sets me a difficult task. There will be discussions in the Executive about the important issue of freedom of information. I hope that the hon Member will be present.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am not in the Executive.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The party represented by the hon Member has got revolving-door Ministries. I was guilty of thinking that the hon Member was still a Minister, but it is not his turn this week or next week. However, now that the election is out of the way we will maybe see the musical chairs operating again.
The First Minister and I do not consult each other; we make decisions jointly. The strength of this Administration is that it has the representatives of both sections of the community jointly making decisions. Come and join us and see that it works.

Mr John Dallat: Assuming that democracy will survive, will the Minister tell the House what the likely steps will be to introduce the Freedom of Information Act?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Democracy will survive. It will survive in the Chamber and in the Administration.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: It will survive because there have been those on both sides who have been at pains to show the alternative to democracy.
An independent working group of senior officials has been established to oversee the implementation of the Act across all Departments. Contact will be maintained with the Lord Chancellor’s Department and the Information Commissioner’s Office to establish best practice, promote awareness of obligations under the Act and ensure compliance with all aspects of the new legislation.
We are currently considering the most appropriate date to implement the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the devolved Administration. That depends on several factors, which include the time needed for the Information Commissioner to set up her office. The Executive Committee will be considering that matter shortly with a view to the First Minister and I reaching agreement with the Lord Chancellor on the implementation date to be applied here.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr Billy Armstrong: 7. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, following the initial relief package provided by the Executive for industries affected by foot-and-mouth disease, if any further relief measures are being considered; and to make a statement.
(AQO1616/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: There has been a positive response from businesses to the financial relief package we announced on 21 May. There have been over 400 calls to the helpline to register interest in the help for business scheme as well as contact through the web site. Applications will be processed as quickly as possible by the new unit established to administer the scheme.
While we welcome the good news on regionalisation, which will lead to a reopening of export markets, we are aware that some businesses are still suffering due to the impact of foot-and-mouth disease, and we are keeping the situation under continual review. The interdepartmental task force led by the Economic Policy Unit continues to monitor the impact of foot-and-mouth disease on the Northern Ireland economy and provides regular reports to the Executive.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Can the Minister assure me that assistance measures available in Northern Ireland remain on a par with those in the rest of the UK, bearing in mind that foot-and-mouth disease was first diagnosed in GB and not here?

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is our aim that the assistance available here should be no less beneficial than that available in similar circumstances in Great Britain. Where there are legislative and other constraints, as in the case of rate relief, alternative ways of achieving the objective are being developed. Officials from our Department continue to attend the Whitehall rural task force to keep abreast of developments and wider economic issues in Great Britain, and I am sure that Northern Ireland benefits from any national schemes.
As the Member knows, the measures available in Northern Ireland include the following: the help for business scheme; the small firms loan guarantee scheme; the deferral of tax, VAT and National Insurance payments; business advice from LEDU and the IDB; marketing Northern Ireland and attracting promoters through the tourism recovery strategy; advice on alternative training and employment opportunities; advice on benefits and advice to farmers on farm business. The information leaflet published by the Executive entitled ‘Coping with Foot-and-Mouth Disease — Help for Businesses’ provides further details including contact numbers, and those can also be obtained from the web site.
As a way of showing that the assistance is as beneficial here as it is in Great Britain I would like to cite the marketing tourism scheme. We invested £1 million in the scheme — on a per capita basis adjusted for the size of Northern Ireland compared with GB — which is higher than the equivalent figures for across the water.

Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (Identity)

Mrs Annie Courtney: 8. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline what plans there are to provide a clearer identity for the Office and the Executive.
(AQO1624/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is important that the public can easily recognise and identify with the work of the Administration that serves it. With this in mind a corporate identity for the Executive and its Departments is currently being developed. It will provide a clear branding of all aspects of the work of the Administration and will feature on correspondence, publications, advertisements, buildings and vehicles. There will be an overarching branding framework for the Executive, but each Department will have its own clear identity within that structure in relation to its functions.
A strong corporate identity is important for the promotion of Northern Ireland’s interests in Europe, the United States and everywhere abroad. We want to provide a clear image for the devolved Administration that can be recognised everywhere.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his response. Will he assure us that the Executive identity will be coherent and that all Departments, including the semi-detached Departments with DUP Ministers will be fully integrated and signed up to the programme?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member is pointing up the failure of two Ministers to participate properly in the workings of government. That is a major issue and one that brings no credit to those who are adopting that position. The corporate identity aims to make it easy for the public to recognise government and the relevant Departments within government. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the two Ministers who do not take part in the proper workings of this Administration to think again and probe sufficiently to see if they have any conscience left in calling themselves Ministers and not assuming responsibility.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. Time is up.

Regional Development

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr McGrady is absent —[Interruption]. Order. The House is entitled to hear the proceedings. Question 1 in the name of Mr McGrady will receive a written answer. Question 2 in the name of Ms Armitage has been transferred to the Department of the Environment and will receive a written answer.

Rural Road Network

Dr Dara O'Hagan: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development whether he has any plans to increase investment in the rural road network.
(AQO1604/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I indicated in my replies to recent similar questions that I am conscious that existing levels of funding to maintain and improve the road network fall short of the requirements. I will be considering the scale of the infrastructure investment required on roads, including rural roads, as part of the work underway to develop a 10-year regional transportation strategy for Northern Ireland
The regional transportation strategy will consider ways of increasing investment in transport infrastructure and how any additional money might best be spent. I hope to be in a position to present my draft regional transportation strategy to the Committee for Regional Development this autumn. Until the strategy is in place I will continue to press for additional funds for the road network at every opportunity. In the meantime I assure the House that my Department will continue to make the best use of the resources currently available to develop and maintain the rural road network.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: I thank the Minister for his answer. I have written to him in relation to roads in Derrytrasna and Aghagallon in the Upper Bann constituency. One issue that was brought to my attention, along with every Member in the House who has been canvassing recently, was the state of rural roads. I am pleased with the Minister’s answer. The rural network away from the main roads is particularly bad, and there are a lot of potholes. People in rural areas pay the same taxes as everyone else, and they are entitled to equal services. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am concerned about the maintenance and improvement of the rural roads network. We will spend approximately £44 million in the current financial year on structural maintenance of all roads. Some of that will be on rural roads.
That figure compares favourably with last year’s initial allocation of £39 million. The Roads Service and I have to constantly reappraise the need to improve the infrastructure of rural roads. The restrictive allocation of funding is a continual problem, which I know applies to other Departments as well. We will continue to keep that matter under review.

Mr Alan McFarland: In the light of the imminent appearance of the results of the Hayes review of acute hospitals, has the Minister had discussions with the review group? Will he undertake to improve the rural trunk road network, particularly in Tyrone and Fermanagh, so that ambulances can have rapid transit in those areas?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I have not had direct correspondence with the Hayes review group, but I will endeavour to establish what level of communication took place between departmental officials and the group. I will inform the Member of the outcome.
The Member referred to roads in the west of the Province, particularly those in Tyrone and Fermanagh, and the accessibility of hospitals and essential services, something I am acutely aware of. Unfortunately, in the absence of additional funding, I will only be able to carry out works that have already been committed to in the present year. However, as a result of the hon Member’s question, I will look at the issues arising in Tyrone and Fermanagh.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: First, I congratulate the Minister for Regional Development on his outstanding victory in East Londonderry and wish him well for his time in Westminster.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member is out of order. Will he please address the question?

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I would be delighted to. A Northern Ireland Audit Office report has confirmed that expenditure in Northern Ireland on structural matters has consistently been inadequate. Has the Minister made bids to all possible funding sources to rectify that situation? In particular, was a bid made to the Executive programme funds?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his comments as well as for his question. As I said, my Department is constantly revising and analysing that issue to see where possible additional moneys can be accessed. I can respond positively. For example, I recently told the Assembly that I had put in a bid for additional funding maintenance in excess of £48 million for roads capital and for roads structural maintenance. I am pleased to report that bids for capital works worth £27 million were successful. Unfortunately, other bids, particularly for structural maintenance, were unsuccessful. I repeat that we will continue to work on that until we get sufficient resources for what the public and every Member of this House wants — the improvement of the infrastructure of our rural and urban roads.

Ballyclare Sewage Treatment Works

Mr Jim Wilson: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail when the commencement of works will begin to enhance the treatment of waste water at Ballyclare sewage treatment works.
(AQO1621/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Several options have been identified for the provision of enhanced waste water treatment for the Ballyclare area. A detailed technical and economic appraisal of those options is nearing completion.
I propose to consult in the near future with local public representatives about those options. I then hope to be able to announce the way ahead in the next two to three months. Work is expected to commence in October 2002. It will take 18 months to complete and will cost around £5 million. The starting date is subject to the completion of all the various stages, including planning approval. Improvements costing £500,000 will be made to the sewerage system in Ballyclare at the same time.

Mr Jim Wilson: That is very welcome news. In November 1996, Malcolm Moss advised a concerned resident that no future development in Ballyclare should proceed until the sewerage system had been enhanced. Bearing that in mind, will the Minister assure me that three extensive housing developments, one on the Doagh Road by Clauglin Developments, the Ballyclare village project and a development at Ballyeaston Road in Ballyclare, amounting to hundreds of houses, will not proceed? Will he advise the Planning Service not to continue until the Ballyclare sewage treatment works have been substantially enhanced?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I hope that, given the timescale, any minor difficulties will be ironed out in the short term. I will need to look at the issue raised by the hon Member. I will, in consultation with the Planning Service and my Colleague Mr Foster, confer with the Member on the proposed developments that he mentioned to ensure that speedy completion of the works that I have mentioned does not stand in the way of development. However, the developments should not be held up interminably because of any problems that may be encountered because of my announcement.

Northern Ireland Railways

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give an assessment as to whether the new Northern Ireland Railways timetable provides appropriate levels of service.
(AQO1611/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I consider that the new Northern Ireland Railways (NIR) timetable provides appropriate levels of service, bearing in mind the limited rolling stock currently available. Because of the reopening on 10 June of the direct rail link between Antrim and Belfast, the new timetable provides journey time reductions of over 30 minutes for travel between Belfast and Antrim and all stations north and west of Antrim.
Those reductions have also enabled Translink to use its available rolling stock to provide a better service on the Londonderry to Belfast line. For example, there are now nine scheduled services each way on weekdays, compared to seven northbound and six southbound prior to the reopening of the line.

Mr David Ford: There are clearly benefits in the new timetable for the northern part of the region and for those travelling from the Waterside to Antrim and on to Belfast. How can the Minister assess the value of the Knockmore line, as he plans to do over the next year, when the only morning train from Antrim to Belfast via Lisburn is timed to suit school students who must be in Lisburn before 7.30 and workers who must be in Belfast before 8.00? Is it realistic to base any assessment on such a timetable?

Mr Gregory Campbell: As the Member knows, I am acutely aware of the problem. I received a number of deputations about the Antrim to Knockmore line and spoke to a number of people in the area before the decision to preserve the line for a further year was taken. I also spoke to people who were still lobbying when the announcement was made.
So, if there is a section of rail line in Northern Ireland that I am aware of, it is the Antrim to Knockmore section. My difficulty is that Northern Ireland Railways told me that it was in the unenviable position of having to open a new line. It cost approximately £17million to provide an efficient, effective service and increase and improve the level of service for the thousands of people who use that line. The line is now open. Unfortunately, the corollary of that was that the Antrim to Knockmore line could not be supplemented and built up to the same degree.
I was not prepared to contemplate the closure of the Antrim to Knockmore line, and I am still not prepared to contemplate it. I understand and accept the Member’s point that the current reduced service is not the best way of measuring the effectiveness of any service beyond the 12-month extension. Unfortunately, it is the only method that we have. I hope that we will be able to look again at the Antrim to Knockmore line in the regional transportation strategy, and I view its continued usage with sympathy and support. I hope that we will be able to preserve it, but I cannot say more than that.

Mr Edwin Poots: When the new rolling stock is brought in for other lines, does the Minister intend to use the existing rolling stock for the Antrim to Knockmore line? Will the rolling stock be used at more appropriate hours so that peak-period public transport could be provided for people who wish to use the line?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I put forward similar propositions recently. Unfortunately, it will take approximately two years to acquire the new rolling stock. However, it is not as straightforward or as simple as preserving the line until new rolling stock becomes available and then transferring some of it to the Antrim to Knockmore line. We must also remember that there is a significant and substantial cost implication for preserving the line on safety grounds in the next three years or so. It will cost millions of pounds. The Member has raised the issue and I, as Minister, have already raised the issue in the Department. If it provides a possible source of preserving the line, I am open to looking at that.

Asbestos Water Mains

Mr Mervyn Carrick: 6. asked the Minister for Regional Development, pursuant to AQO1204/00, to state the length of asbestos cement water mains by county area.
(AQO1606/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: There are approximately 1,250 miles of asbestos cement water mains located throughout NorthernIreland. That represents less than 10% of the total length of water mains. There are 210miles of asbestos cement water mains in Antrim; 50miles in Armagh; 140miles in Down; 130miles in Fermanagh; 370miles in Londonderry, and 350miles in Tyrone.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: Undoubtedly the Minister will be aware of the degree of concern among environmentalists and the public regarding the health risk that asbestos cement water mains pose. Does he accept that during the repair of those mains there is a risk of water contamination by particles of asbestos falling into the water supply during the removal of the deficient sections? What safeguards have been implemented for the consumer, bearing in mind that engineers, recognising the health risk, are kitted out in special protective clothing when carrying out repairs?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am aware of concerns about asbestos in water mains. As a result, I have tried to obtain an assessment of the situation from the health professionals. In 1996, the World Health Organisation advised that since
"there is no consistent evidence that ingested asbestos is hazardous to health"
the position remains unchanged since a review in 1998.
I understand the Member’s concern about the removal. The UK Water Research Centre carried out a review on the use of asbestos in the major European countries, the United States of America, Australia and Japan. It was found that most of those countries surveyed had stopped using asbestos cement pipes and that they had no plans to replace existing asbestos cement pipes, as these were not considered to present a health risk.
I am not in possession of information that indicates that there would be a substantial risk with the removal or replacement of those pipes. If I were, however, the position would be revised. The ongoing replacement of asbestos pipes will take some time to complete. At the moment, fewer than 10% of water mains are made of asbestos.

Sewage Treatment Works (Mid Ulster)

Mr Billy Armstrong: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail (a) how many sewage treatment works within the constituency of Mid Ulster are at full or excess capacity at this date and (b) his plans for resolving problem sites.
(AQO1614/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: There are 27 waste water treatment works in the Mid Ulster constituency which serve population equivalents greater than 250. Four of these works, at Cookstown, Stewartstown, Sandholes and Magherafelt, operate in excess of their respective design capacities. A further seven works at Killeen, Coagh, Moneymore, Pomeroy, Clunto (Richardson), Creagh and Clady are approaching their respective design capacities. Work is already under way to upgrade the Killeen works, and that is due to be completed this autumn at a cost of approximately £600,000.
The Water Service plans to invest some £10 million in upgrading treatment facilities at eight works over the next five years, and investigations are being carried out into the options for upgrading the facilities at Pomeroy and Creagh. The largest project is the construction of a new treatment works at Cookstown. It is planned that that will commence in June 2002, take 18 months to complete and cost £5 million.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Minister agree that the health of the people is most important and that a situation in which the sewerage provision is inadequate should not have arisen?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am aware of the problems with waste water treatment works across Northern Ireland as well as with those in Mid Ulster, which I outlined in some detail. My concern is reflected in my bids to try to upgrade the entire network, but again the difficulty is with the lack of resources. Two months ago I outlined possible ways of getting substantially increased capital funding diverted towards Water Service capital works schemes, and I am currently examining them.
I will continue to do that, and I will report to the House if and when we successfully obtain the funds.

Provision of Footpaths (Rural Areas)

Mr John Dallat: 8. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the criteria applied in rural areas when considering the provision of footpaths.
(AQO1629/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Schemes to provide new and improved footways are considered by Roads Service for inclusion in minor roadworks programmes. Footways and other minor works proposals must compete for priority, given the limited funding that is available. In assessing the priority of footway schemes, consideration is given to a number of factors, including: pedestrian counts; traffic volumes; the potential for pedestrian and traffic growth; accident histories; environmental factors, such as the presence of schools, churches, et cetera; the practicality of constructing the schemes and the cost of the schemes and the availability of funds.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr John Dallat: Does the Minister agree that children at rural schools are at particular risk when there is a high volume of through traffic? Will he undertake to identify the high-risk areas, with a view to providing footpaths where the risk is clearly too high? The Portglenone to Randalstown road is one place where I see schoolchildren running the gauntlet of the traffic as I travel to and from this House.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am aware of the safety problems faced by rural schools in particular — probably more acutely in the winter, but also throughout the year. I will undertake to examine the specific instance that the Member has come across between his constituency and Parliament Buildings. I will respond in writing about that.

Mr George Savage: Does the Minister agree that in determining the criteria for the provision of footpaths in rural areas, consideration should also be given to cycle lanes in order to enhance the amenity value of the countryside? That would enhance the potential for rural tourism as part of the diversification of the rural economy.

Mr Gregory Campbell: The short answer is "Yes", but the Member will expect a more substantial answer than that.
The charitable organisation Sustrans has been in constant communication with Roads Service in trying to establish suitable areas, most but not all of them rural, where cycle lanes could be provided. A number of cycle lanes have been established in recent days; I have opened two in the past six months. However, I look forward to any increased funding, whether from bids that I make or from Sustrans or any other source, that would enable me to respond favourably to the Member and to ensure that increased numbers of cycle paths are included where it is possible to construct footways.

Flying of Paramilitary Flags (Policy)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 9. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail what steps have been taken to co-ordinate policy between his Department, the RUC and NIHE to prevent the flying of paramilitary flags, the defacing of tombstones and the painting of offensive murals; and to make a statement.
(AQO1626/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Problems associated with the flying of flags and emblems and with the painting of graffiti and murals are widespread across Northern Ireland. While my Department’s property is often used for such purposes, many other properties are also affected, for example, properties belonging to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, district councils, Northern Ireland Electricity and British Telecom, as well as those of many private individuals.
On receipt of complaints about the flying of flags on Roads Service property, my Department will try to gauge community reaction to determine the likely success of any efforts that might be taken to remove flags. That is generally done through consultation with the RUC and/or local councillors or other public representatives in the area.

Mrs Eileen Bell: It is a difficult situation, and I know that the Minister is trying to deal with it as much as possible.
Given the increase in the number of flags, does the Minister agree that his Department should take the lead so that people in affected areas can be freed from fear and possible intimidation? The Minister said that his Department deals with complaints about flags and that they are in consultation with the affected communities. However, those communities often live in fear and are scared to get involved. This morning, in broad daylight, flags were being erected on the main road to Tullycarnet — the issue must be dealt with as soon as possible.

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member knows the Department’s policy on graffiti and the flying of flags on departmental property. It has been said many times that the Department will try to remove from its property any illegal flags and graffiti that are a danger to road users. In other instances, where there is no danger, in spite of there being no legislative requirement to do so, the Roads Service will seek to remove such material on the advice of the RUC and where there is strong local support. The problem is that often the removal of flags leads to the erection of more flags than there were before. That is why the Roads Service places great importance on local community support for the removal of flags. There is concern about the flying of flags in communities during a few weeks in the summer, but also about those areas where flags fly all year. Those flags are equally unacceptable.

Environment

Third-Party Planning Appeals

Mr Seamus Close: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to introduce third-party planning appeals.
(AQO1617/00)

Mr Sam Foster: I have no plans to introduce third-party planning appeals. I have examined the case for introducing such appeals before, but there are well-established procedures in the planning process that allow third parties to submit representations and objections. The introduction of third-party rights of appeal would add delay, cost and uncertainty to the planning process. I recognise, however, that that is an evolving area, and I have asked my officials to keep procedures and policy under review.

Mr Seamus Close: I am grateful that the Minister is keeping the matter under review, however, I would like to be more specific. Consider a situation where a council is unanimous in its objection to or support for a development. Does the Minister agree that a council, made up of elected representatives, that unanimously objects to a departmental proposal should have a right to appeal rather than being dismissed out of hand as is currently the case?

Mr Sam Foster: I take the Member’s important point on board. As I said, this is an evolving matter which we will continue to keep an eye on. The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 provides applicants with a right to appeal against a refusal of planning permission. There is no right of appeal for third parties, but they can make representations on planning applications. As I have said, such appeals would cause delays and uncertainty and add costs to the planning process. A third-party appeal system could also be vulnerable to abuse.

Mr David McClarty: Will the Minister outline the possible impact of a third-party right of appeal on the planning process?

Mr Sam Foster: My Department has estimated that the introduction of a third-party right of appeal could result in an additional 700 appeals a year, which is quite a number compared to approximately 350 appeals a year at present. That would cost upwards of £1million a year. I am not sure that the system would be able to take such an increase at this time without more resources. It is a difficult issue.

Mr Edwin Poots: I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response on this occasion. He must get real on this issue. People are not satisfied with what is currently on offer. He mentions the planning problems experienced by people in business. What about the problems of the individuals whose human rights are being damaged by many large businesses that have trampled and abused the planning system for years? When are those peoples’ rights going to be recognised?

Mr Sam Foster: Everyone is equal as far as we are concerned, whether their business is large or small. There is no discrimination — each planning application is taken on its own merits. I recognise that the Human Rights Act places increased emphasis on the protection of individual rights. The rights of third parties are well protected under the current planning system. However, as I said, this is an evolving area, and my Department is continuing to keep policy and procedures under very close review.

Coastal Forum

Mr David Ford: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the cost of establishing a coastal forum.
(AQO1610/00)

Mr Billy Hutchinson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have omitted question no 2.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I shall not take points of order during ministerial Question Time.

Mr Sam Foster: I regret that I have only recently been able to write to the Member to provide the information that he sought in the supplementary question some time ago.
My officials have estimated that the direct staff costs of establishing and providing support for a coastal forum could well exceed £100,000 per annum. However, that figure takes no account of the senior staff time that my Department would have to devote to supporting the work of a coastal forum. Nor does it take account of the input that would be needed from other Departments, or of other probable costs such as expenditure on research, travel, and so forth. Therefore the true cost of establishing and supporting the work of a coastal forum is likely to be much higher.
As I made clear in responses to earlier questions, the additional resources made available in the Budget last year were not sufficient to enable my Department to establish and support a forum. I have said that I see some merit in the proposal. However, meeting my Department’s commitments in the Programme for Government and the public service agreement must have first claim on resources.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for the responses that I received last week to my questions of some months ago.
I accept his point that there is a cost attached to setting up a coastal forum. However, does he not agree that, in the absence of a coastal forum, senior staff time is likely to be taken up with dealing with those issues anyway? Given the importance of the issues that a coastal forum would deal with, and the cross- departmental themes involving the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department for Regional Development, is it not time that the Department submitted a bid under the Executive programme funds to ensure that the small amount of money that could be produced for overall benefits is committed in future spending rounds?

Mr Sam Foster: As I said, the additional resources made available in the Budget last year were not sufficient to enable my Department to establish and support a forum. I am very much aware of the concern that exists and will take that into consideration. I will continue to seek the necessary resources in the forthcoming spending round.
Moreover, in view of the potential cross-cutting nature of the role of such a body, any decision to establish a forum would also require agreement on the scope of its remit. Therefore I have written to Minister Rodgers and Minister Campbell, whose Departments would have the most direct interest in such a body, to seek their views on the merits of the proposal — subject to resources of course.

Mrs Joan Carson: Can the Minister assure us that he and his Department are really considering the establishment of a coastal forum?

Mr Sam Foster: I can assure Mrs Carson and the House that we are not taking this lightly, but we do not have the resources. I will continue to seek the necessary resources in the forthcoming spending round, but other priorities have taken precedence at this time. I can assure Members that it is not being taken lightly.

Biodiversity Strategy

Mr Sean Neeson: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail progress made with proposals for a biodiversity strategy since their launch last October, and to outline the timetable for the adoption of the strategy.
(AQO1618/00)

Mr Sam Foster: In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government, I intend to publish a Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy by the end of October 2001. In preparing the strategy, careful account will be taken of the 76 recommendations for action that I received last autumn from the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group. The group’s recommendations have implications not only for Departments but also for other sectors and, indeed, for wider society in Northern Ireland. Many of them also call for action that would need to be sustained over the long term.
My officials have been discussing the recommendations with other relevant Departments. I expect to receive a first draft of the strategy in the next few weeks. In the meantime, my Department is drawing up plans for allocating the additional resources for biodiversity secured in the Budget last year.

Mr Sean Neeson: Can the Minister assure me that the proposals of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group will not merely be taken into account, as he has recently been quoted as saying, but will in fact form the backbone — a very strong backbone — of that strategy? I would be concerned if attempts were made to water down their proposals.

Mr Sam Foster: I can assure the Member that there is no attempt at all to water down any proposals, and we will look at them specifically. I expect that the strategy being prepared will set out the broad approach to be followed in conserving biodiversity, and that more detailed implementation plans will subsequently be drawn up. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group for the sterling work it undertook, work which has done so much to advance preparation of an agreed biodiversity strategy. I am not yet in a position to say precisely how the group’s recommendations will be reflected in the strategy. However, as I have already said, careful account is being taken of the group’s report.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mrs Eileen Bell has notified me that she will be absent and will receive a written answer to question 5.

Telecommunication Antennae

Mr Mervyn Carrick: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to amend the planning regulations in respect of the attachment of telecommunication antennae to existing structures.
(AQO1605/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department issued a consultation paper on 10 November 2000 seeking views on possible changes to planning legislation for the control of development by licensed telecommunications code system operators. The deadline of 16 January 2001 for replies was extended in order to allow more time for the Environment Committee to provide a response. Its comments were received on 5 April 2001.
Following a discussion on the outcome of the consultation paper on 14 June 2001, the Executive Committee decided that the best way forward was for full planning procedures to be applied to telecommunication masts. I have asked my officials to consider what legislation is necessary to implement the Executive Committee’s decision, and I expect to be able to introduce that legislation in the autumn. The attachment of telecommunication antennae to existing structures will be taken into consideration in that process.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I note the positive nature of the Minister’s response. I know that he has been inundated with matters concerning telecommunication masts, but I will just add to his burden. In the light of the clustering of antennae and the sharing arrangements for telecommunication masts and equipment, does the Minister accept that new planning legislation is required? Does the Minister have any proposals to specifically include clustering and sharing arrangements in the new proposed legislation?

Mr Sam Foster: Telecommunication masts are a big problem. However, in the course of the legislative process the Department will consider and take note of Mr Carrick’s comments.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the Minister accept that the lack of neighbourhood notification about those masts has created many problems, and can he say how he intends to legislate on the matter? Can he also update me on the controversial case of the masts near Newry and Jerrettspass? I am grateful for his assistance in the matter.

Mr Sam Foster: All aspects will be taken into consideration. The Jerrettspass situation was difficult. My officials have had discussions with Crown Castle, the developer’s agents in this case, and they have indicated their intention to remove the mast as soon as the operator can identify an alternative means of providing a service, but I do not expect any undue delay. I am grateful to One 2 One and Crown Castle for their co-operation in that matter.

Mr Boyd Douglas: Does the Minister agree that many of the microwave dishes and antennae that are attached to two masts under permitted development are now illegal, since most of them have been extended in the meantime?

Mr Sam Foster: It will take some time to prepare the necessary legislation. As we can only apply the current legislation, masts erected under permitted development will remain.

High-Density Developments

Ms Pauline Armitage: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline his plans to reverse the current trend of high-density developments that have radically affected the social and demographic character of many of our coastal towns.
(AQO1603/00)

Mr Sam Foster: I have discussed those concerns with the Member in the past. My Department’s planning policy statement 7, ‘Quality Residential Environments’, is to be published in its final form soon, and it will require developers to provide high-quality proposals that are sympathetic to the character of an existing area. It will also provide for development plans to identify local design requirements for new residential development which could include, for example, dwelling numbers, mix and types.
My Department will also issue draft supplementary planning guidance in the summer for consultation. It will take the form of a development control advice note, providing specific guidance on proposals for small unit housing within existing urban areas. Although it will not set policy, it will give guidance to developers on the physical form of housing development, including apartments, and the relationship to surrounding properties.
The development plan process will continue to provide communities with an opportunity to comment on and influence the future development of their areas. That opportunity will be enhanced by the recently introduced issues paper approach to the early stages of the process. In addition, the Department for Regional Development is preparing a regional planning policy statement on ‘Housing in Settlements’, which will provide strategic guidance on a range of social and sustainable housing policies.

Ms Pauline Armitage: I was reasonably happy with the Minister until he informed me that his new advice note will be for guidance only. We have had guidance before, and guidance for developers is unsatisfactory. Does the Minister feel that mere guidance is good enough, as this is a major problem in many coastal areas? People can either take guidance or ignore it, and I ask the Minister if he has something more secure to eradicate this problem.

Mr Sam Foster: We all need guidance of some kind in every aspect of life, and guidance is important in policies. The objective of planning policy must be to accommodate the growing demand for affordable housing, which is driven by demographic changes and the rising number of households.
The regional development strategy will set a target for growth in the number of new dwellings to be provided in existing urban areas. The Planning Service has been engaged in the quality initiative. The purpose of that initiative has been to promote a design-led approach in order to achieve quality housing schemes in existing urban areas. The ‘Creating Places’ layout guide published in May2000 is assisting that process.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McGrady has advised me that he will be absent. Question No 8 in the name of MrMcGrady will therefore receive a written answer.

Zebra Mussels

Mrs Joan Carson: 9. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail what research has been carried out to identify possible controls for zebra mussels infesting Lough Erne; and to make a statement.
(AQO1620/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department for Regional Development have established an interdepartmental group to co-ordinate action on this problem. Waterways Ireland and Queen’s University are also represented. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has initiated a three-year study of the ecological impacts of the mussels on Lough Erne. That study is investigating changes in algae, water clarity, nutrient levels and the impact on native swan mussel beds. It has found that zebra mussels have consumed much of the algae in the lake and that water clarity is at the highest level ever recorded.
The majority of the native swan mussel beds have been colonised, and there is a threat of local extinction of those mussels. Further research, funded by my Department, is now being undertaken to predict the impacts and to assess the effectiveness of control measures for other lakes in Northern Ireland. However, it is impossible to control the zebra mussel infestation in Lough Erne. They have become densely established on all available hard surfaces throughout both the upper and lower loughs. I am disappointed about that, as I come from that part of the world myself. It is a difficult situation.

Mrs Joan Carson: I echo the Minister’s concern. His reply has been useful, but I am particularly concerned about the cost to Northern Ireland. Can we recoup some of the costs from the Republic, where the infestation came from? I am concerned that we have lost algae and some of the pondweeds and the plankton that the fish eat. How will the Minister and his Department ensure that the fish stocks in both loughs will not be endangered?

Mr Sam Foster: As I have said, zebra mussels are now very abundant in Upper and Lower Lough Erne but have not spread elsewhere in Northern Ireland. The most obvious effect has been an increase in the clarity of the water in shallow areas. This is mostly because zebra mussels feed by filtering the water and extracting the microscopic aquatic life.
The effect of zebra mussels on fish stocks is very worrying. The effect will be indirect, and it will take some time to become fully apparent. It is expected that changes to water quality, bottom sediments and ultimately the fish food chain will affect fish populations to some extent. Ongoing work by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on fish stocks in Lough Erne will indicate future changes.
It could be very difficult to get money from the Republic of Ireland, but zebra mussels did come through from the Shannon into Lough Erne. That is rather sad. I would advise people to closely monitor their boats to ensure that no more of them come in. Take ultimate precautions, hose down well, scrub and be very watchful and careful. Once they are in, they are difficult to control.

Speed Limiting Measures

Mr Billy Armstrong: 10. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail what research has been carried out into the feasibility of applying innovative speed limiting measures to vehicles.
(AQO1615/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions completed a research project last year on intelligent speed adaptation systems. Those can automatically restrict the maximum speed of vehicles to the relevant speed limit. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has recently begun a further research project examining how intelligent speed adaptation might affect driving behaviour. That work is complementary to work being carried out in other European countries, particularly Sweden and the Netherlands. Initial results suggest that those systems offer the prospect of significantly reducing the number and severity of speed-related collisions. However, vehicle construction standards are governed by EU Regulations, and any requirement for the compulsory fitting of intelligent speed limiters would therefore need to be agreed at European level.
Discussions at European level are under way, although those are still at an early stage. My Department will continue to monitor developments in this area through its contacts with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Has the Minister any plans for using new technology such as computerising vehicles?

Mr Sam Foster: There are currently no plans to require the introduction of external vehicle speed control, otherwise known as intelligent speed adaptation. Consideration of any wider application of speed limitation devices is still at an exploratory stage and would require widespread public consultation. It is not, therefore, a feasible option in the short term, but given sufficient public support, intelligent speed limiters could in future make a contribution to preventing collisions or reducing their severity.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.. Many people would consider that most of the speed measures are another means of collecting money from the public who use the roads. Are there statistics that show the impact of slow drivers? Sometimes they are farmers. Slow driving can have an impact on road accidents. Is the Minister doing anything to educate people about how slow driving, as well as speed, is a major cause of road accidents?

Mr Sam Foster: Excessive speed remains the most common cause of collisions, but there is no doubt that slow drivers also create problems. Drivers lose their patience with slow drivers and try to overtake.
Excessive speed accounted for almost a fifth of all collisions that resulted in fatalities or serious casualties between 1994 and 1998. The ‘Northern Ireland Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010’ consultation document invites comments on proposed new initiatives to improve driver ability and significantly change the public’s attitude to excessive speed. New initiatives aim to persuade drivers that neither experience nor advanced car technology makes it safe or acceptable to drive at excessive speed. Responses to the consultation document can be made before 27 July. If the Member or any other Members have a useful response to make, we would be receptive to it.

Disability Awareness Training (PSV Drivers)

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 11. asked the Minister of the Environment if he has any plans to provide disability awareness training for PSV drivers.
(AQO1619/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department has no powers to provide disability awareness training for PSV drivers. I have, however, asked my officials to liaise with Disability Action with a view to preparing a fact sheet on disability awareness training. That could be made available to operators involved in the passenger road transport sector. Translink, which operates the majority of road passenger transport services, already engages the services of a disability awareness officer and provides training on disability awareness for staff. I encourage other PSV operators to include disability awareness as part of their customer care training.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Unfortunately, when people are asked to volunteer, it does not always happen. Is it possible that the Minister’s Department will take an initiative similar to the one that the Department of Education has taken on training all escorts and drivers who deal with young children with disabilities? Will the Minister consider making such training compulsory before a PSV driver can get a licence?

Mr Sam Foster: I cannot give an assurance that we will take that on, but we will see what we can come up with. This is very important, and we could pursue it with other Departments. We will think about what the Member has said without giving any commitment to taking it on.

Landfill Site, Movilla Road, Newtownards

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 12. asked the Minister of the Environment whether the landfill site at Movilla Road, Newtownards is currently operating within planning guidelines.
(AQO1613/00)

Mr Sam Foster: A planning approval to carry out infill operations at the site, together with the provision of facilities to allow for the recycling and recovery of materials, was granted on 22 November 1999. The approval limited the categories of waste to be deposited on the site and the permitted levels of infilling. It also included a requirement that the site should be restored when approved levels are reached, or if infilling ceased for a period of six months. The planning permission also included the erection of a storage building.
A recent site inspection by my officials revealed that while the materials being used as infill are as permitted, the level of infilling appears to be slightly higher than approved. However, it is the experience of the Planning Service that those levels will decrease naturally as the material consolidates. My officials will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that infilling is maintained within the approved levels. Enforcement action will be taken if necessary.
The inspection also revealed that the storage building which formed part of the application has been erected 80 metres from the approved location and is also significantly larger in scale than that indicated on the approved plan. The operator has been warned that that development is unauthorised and that enforcement action may be pursued if it cannot be regularised with a planning permission. In line with normal enforcement policy, he has been asked to submit a planning application for that development. It will be considered on its merits, and if refused, appropriate enforcement action will then be taken.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I am sure that the Minister’s response will be gratefully received by the local residents who have been complaining about the matter for many years. Will the Minister ask his Department to keep a close watch on the activities on that site? If the person operating the site does not comply, will the Minister and his departmental officials take action to ensure that the planning authority rules are not breached?

Mr Sam Foster: Yes, we will certainly monitor the situation. If enforcement action is necessary, it will be taken.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Our time is up.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that question 2 on the Order Paper, posed by Mrs Courtney, who is no longer in her place, appears to have been ignored. May I ask for an explanation?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I neglected to say that the question in the name of Mrs Courtney had been transferred to the Department for Regional Development and will receive a written answer.
Adjourned at 4.03 pm.